Date created: | Last Updated:

Category: Project

Description: – Our study uses a within-subjects, repeated measures design with two (confirmatory and exploratory) parts. In the confirmatory part, we have two conditions: a. The goal of hiring someone who is rational; b. The goal of hiring someone who is reasonable. Within each condition, participants will be randomly presented with a block of five scenarios. In each condition participants will be asked to imagine and write about the given scenario, taking on the role of a person selecting one of two candidates for a job (presentation order randomized). One candidate shows a step-by-step (top-down) logic, consistently follows the rules without exceptions, and focuses on maximization of desired preferences/outcomes. The second candidate employed narratives and analogies in their decision-making, shows a flexible approach to rules, is context-sensitive, and balances personal preferences and civic norms. Within each block, five scenarios concern a military commander, a teacher, a doctor, a lawyer, and a city council representative. To ensure the unique scenarios do not determine the choice in the rational goal vs. reasonable goal blocks, scenarios were counter-balanced (e.g., teacher scenario 1 + rational prompt & teacher scenario 2 + reasonable prompt vs. teacher scenario 1 + reasonable prompt & teacher scenario 2 + rational prompt). In the exploratory part, participants read a set of eight scenarios analogous to the contexts in the confirmatory phase (but without the military decision-maker). Half of the scenarios highlight one type of context, whereas the other half highlight the other type (random order): • Emphasis of an ill-defined context (e.g., complex task with uncertainty and unknowns; requirement to balance different interests); • Emphasis of a well-defined context (e.g., clearly defined task requiring precision & logic; requirement of pursing the most favorable solution/bottom-line). Within each scenario, we ask participants to once again to adopt a decision-maker perspective who has to pick between a “rational” and “reasonable” candidates, this time not specifying any characteristics of what either term implies. Instead, we simply ask participants to indicate who they would trust more to do a good job, which candidate do you think has natural abilities that can't be taught, whom they think is more authentic in their approach, and who is more likely to grow with experience in this position. . Overall, we expect to • Observe a preference for a person showing top-down logic and consistency when the goal is to hire a rational person and a preference for a person showing flexibility and context-sensitivity when the goal is to hire a reasonable person. • In the exploratory analyses, we further explore if people show greater trust for a reasonable vs. rational person, whom one thinks to possess “natural abilities” that can’t be taught, who is more authentic, and who can be further grow with experience in this position. We will further explore if perception of trust, possessing natural abilities that cannot be taught, authenticity, and trainability of vary as a function of highlighting ill-defined vs. well-defined context of a given task.