ABSTRACT Groups of people often find it challenging to coordinate on a single choice or option. Even when coordination is achieved, it may be inefficient because better outcomes were possible. Numerous researchers attempted to address this coordination problem with various manipulations ranging in complexity and generalizability, but results were mixed. Here, we use a more parsimonious and generalizable method – counterfactuals – to nudge (i.e. indirectly guide and allow for free choice) individuals towards choosing options that are more likely to result in efficient coordination. We used a modified version of an existing coordination game, the minimum effort game (MEG), where we added actual effort (i.e. solving an arithmetic problem) and counterfactuals (i.e. statements highlighting the hypothetical outcomes had they or other players chosen differently). Based on previous literature and promising results from a pilot experiment using bidirectional counterfactuals (i.e. both upward and downward), we designed and preregistered a follow-up experiment to directly assess the effectiveness of counterfactuals. We replicated the pilot study with a bidirectional counterfactual condition, then added an upward, downward, and control (no counterfactuals) condition. We found weak evidence for counterfactual nudging and clear evidence that players can effectively nudge the group towards higher efficiency.
This study investigates the role of the nitrogen doping on the durability of Pt-Ru metal nanophase catalysts supported on highly-oriented pyrolytic graphite (HOPG) substrates. The effect of the ion dose during N2 low ion energy implantation on the degree of the HOPG modification and levels of nitrogen doping are evaluated using X-ray photoelectron and Raman spectroscopy. Pt-Ru catalyst metal was deposited onto unmodified and N-implanted HOPG substrates using microwave and magnetron sputtering deposition routes, resulting in deposition either with or without preferential nucleation in the defect-sites. The role of the nitrogen on improved bonding between catalyst and support is evident from the microscopic evaluation of substrates after potential cycling.
There is a lack of psychological, neuroscientific, and philosophical consensus regarding how people evaluate causal relationships: do people just consider what actually happened or do they also consider what could have counterfactually happened? We used eye tracking and Gaussian Process modeling to investigate how people mentally simulated a recent event to judge what caused the outcome to occur. Participants played a virtual ball-shooting game by selecting how to move, encoding the outcome, and—while looking at a blank screen—mentally simulating (a) what actually happened, (b) what counterfactually could have happened, or (c) what caused the outcome to happen. Our findings showed that participants moved their eyes in patterns consistent with the actual or counterfactual events that they mentally simulated. Further, when simulating what caused the outcome to occur, participants moved their eyes in fixation patterns consistent with mental simulations of counterfactual possibilities. These results favor counterfactual theories of causal reasoning, demonstrate how eye movements can reflect visual mental simulation during this reasoning, and provide a novel approach in eye tracking for investigating retrospective causal reasoning and counterfactual thinking.
'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(23.036 .093 25.536)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(45.87 1.273 16.18)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(69.945 .996 12.078)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(20.66 -19.689 31.932)'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)