Participants could either keep $1 on a given trial or transfer it to a partner, in which case the partner would receive $3. The partner could either keep the entire $3 or share half of it back. It was thus advantageous to transfer money to a partner who was expected to share, but disadvantageous to transfer money to one not expected to share.
Participants were instructed that they would be playing with three fictional partners and were given detailed descriptions of each partner's life events indicating praiseworthy, neutral, or suspect moral character.
Participants were also told that their fictional partners' responses would not necessarily be consistent with the descriptions given. In fact, each of the three fictional partners--"good," "bad," and "neutral"--was programmed to share half the time and keep half the time.
In other words, the guy might tell you that your partner is a jerk but he may not ACT like a jerk....
Despite having been warned that the fictional partners' behavior might not match their descriptions, participants were initially much more willing to transfer money to good partners, and much less willing to transfer money to bad partners.
Stop!
The people were just told that the guy might be Satan but act like an Angel and the people were STILL going with the LABEL that was given to the specific person...
KEY POINT FOREVER VALUABLE: LABELS PRIME THINKING
But after having completed multiple trials with each type of partner, participants reported correctly that the different partners seemed to be sharing at about the same rate.
In other words, the partners were all BEHAVING THE SAME. What was different was the PERCEPTION the person had about their partner at the BEGINNING.
AND STILL!!!!!.....
$10,000 KEY: Strikingly, however, participants continued to be more likely to trust partners they were told were good partners and less likely to trust partners they were told were bad ones, even though they indicated explicit knowledge that the response patterns for the different types were the same.
So let's make sure we have this right.
I tell you guy one is a jerk and guy two is a great guy. Then I tell you that they don't necessarily act like who I'm telling you. THEN after they've acted IDENTICALLY, you trust the one I told you was (might be) good and don't trust the one I told you was (might be) bad.
Cool Article?
Get Coffee with Kevin.
Articles, events & more!
+ 2 Free e-books today!
E-zine delivered Mondays.
"Every week, Coffee with Kevin Hogan is a must read. I particularly liked your article on the Can-Doers and the No-Doers. Thanks!" Sharon McGann, Sydney
