Ross and Samuels (1993) assigned people who were previously identified as either cooperative or competitive to play a game labeled either the “ Wall Street Game” or the “ Community Game.” IF the results had shown that competitive individuals behaved more competitively than cooperative individuals regardless of the game’ s label, this would suggest that:

Question

Ross and Samuels (1993) assigned people who were previously identified as either cooperative or competitive to play a game labeled either the “ Wall Street Game” or the “ Community Game.” IF the results had shown that competitive individuals behaved more competitively than cooperative individuals regardless of the game’ s label, this would suggest that:

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Dispositional (trait) explanations of behavior are implicated here: if people previously identified as competitive act competitively across different labeled games, their behavior is better explained by stable personality traits than by the situation’s label. Key concepts: the person–situation debate (traits vs. situational forces), operationalization of “competitive” vs. “cooperative” as pre-screened dispositions, and experimental manipulation of situational framing (Wall Street vs. Community labels).

Step-by-step reasoning:
1. Participants are preclassified as “competitive” or “cooperative” based on prior measures—this establishes putative stable traits.
2. The experimental manipulation is the game label (Wall Street or Community), intended to prime either competitive or cooperative norms.
3. Observed outcome (hypothetical): competitive individuals behave competitively and cooperative individuals behave cooperatively regardless of the label assigned.
4. Logical inference: because behavior tracks the preexisting trait category rather than the situational label, the label had little causal influence on behavior.
5. Therefore, variability in choices is best attributed to dispositional differences (stable personality traits) rather than the situational frame.

Why this answer is correct: consistency of behavior across contrasting situational cues is the hallmark of trait influence. If the label had been the dominant force, we would expect competitive-sounding labels to induce competitive behavior and community labels to induce cooperation, irrespective of a person’s prior classification. The hypothetical result contradicts that, pointing to stability in individual tendencies.

Why the other options are incorrect:
- “People cooperate when placed in social dilemmas.” Irrelevant generalization; the result compares competitive vs cooperative individuals, not a universal cooperation tendency.
- “The name of the game strongly determines how people behave.” Opposite of the hypothetical result; labels did not change behavior.
- “Situational labels and personality traits equally determine behavior.” The result shows personality predominance, not equal influence.

Conclusion: The correct interpretation is that stable personality traits drive behavior more than situational framing, which matches the provided answer.

类似问题

Environmental scientists use many other kinds of knowledge to reach their goals. If a scientist wanted to know how best to urge people to adopt new ideas, they would need an understanding of Blank ______.

Perhaps the most crucial determinant of whether we like someone is whether he or she likes us. This best illustrates the power of

_____________ refers to the notion that the more we encounter a stimulus, the more we grow to like it.

When telemarketers call to ask if you care about poverty and then ask you to donate to a homeless shelter, which social influence technique is being used?

In all likelihood, there is a kernel of truth to the "what is beautiful is good" stereotype; that is, attractive people are often more warm and socially skilled than less attractive people. According to the self fulfilling prophecy, this is probably because

The Abilene Paradox is ______________?

A study finds that targeted group members are more likely to be seen as overly sensitive, whereas non-targeted group members are seen as more credible. Which explanation best accounts for this pattern?

Which one of the following is NOT a stated reason for why “shared realities” create closeness with people?

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单