The Influence of Psychopathic Traits and Affective Feedback on Cooperation in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma Open Access

Abstract

Consistent with interdependence theory (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Van Lange et al., 2013), a growing body of behavioral research has examined the interactive influence of structural, psychological, dynamic interaction processes on social cooperation with the Prisoner’s Dilemma paradigm (PD; Luce & Raiffa, 1957). Accordingly, the PD paradigm has increasingly served as a framework for examining this interactive influence on social cooperation. Significant impairment in interpersonal-affective processes is a central characteristic of psychopathy in both clinical and non-clinical populations. However, little is known about the interaction of psychopathic traits and affective processes in the interpersonal context of social cooperation. To address this gap in the literature, the current study examined the individual and interactive influence of psychopathy, affective feedback congruence, and Stroop interference on cooperation in PD. A secondary goal was to analyze the relation between psychopathy and emotion perception, as well as the presence of a Dunning-Kruger effect (Kruger & Dunning, 1999) for emotion recognition ability. A total of 237 undergraduate and Prolific participants were recruited for this study. Consistent with previous research on reverse appraisal, the congruence of affective feedback in PD was associated with increased rate and expectation of cooperation across a 20-round iterated PD with a computerized opponent using a tit-for-tat strategy. Psychopathic Personality Inventory – Revised (PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) Machiavellian Egocentricity and Blame Externalization were negatively associated with cooperation in PD; additionally, a significant three-way interaction emerged between affective feedback congruence, Stroop Interference, and two PPI-R measures (Stress Immunity and Coldheartedness) for predicting the expectation of cooperation in PD. The relation between actual and estimated emotion recognition ability was assessed with pairwise comparisons by tercile and quartile, as well as with mixed-model regression analyses, yielding patterns that are partially consistent with previous research on the Dunning-Kruger effect. Due to a small sample size, additional research is needed to increase confidence in the validity of the findings for the current study. Future research should replicate the study with human opponents in the modified iterated PD to increase ecological validity, and control for age and gender when exploring the Dunning-Kruger effect for emotion recognition ability.

Table of Contents

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………….............……....….. 1

   Prisoner’s Dilemma Task (PD) ...……………………………………………………..............…..……. 4

        Influence of Emotions in PD …………………………………………………….............…..……… 5

   Psychopathy ……………………………………………………………………………...................……. 10

         Psychopathy and Emotion …………………………………………………………...............….…. 11

         Psychopathy and Cooperation ……………………………………………………..............……… 12

    Current Study ………………………………………………………………………......…….............….. 15

         Psychopathy and Emotion Perception …………………………………………………................ 15

         Individual Difference and Interpersonal Influences on Cooperation in PD ….............….. 16

              Affective Feedback Congruence ……………………………………………….…...............….. 16

              Psychopathy ……………………………………………………………………...................…….. 17

              Stroop Interference ……………………………………………………....…….............………… 18

              Interactive Influence of Psychopathy, Affective Feedback Congruence, and Stroop

              Interference ……………………………………………………………......…….............………... 19

Method ………………………………………………………………….........…………….............………… 19

    Participants …………………………………………………………......………..............……………….. 19

    Procedure …………………………………………………........………………..............………………… 21

         Measures …………………………………………………........………………..............……………… 21

               Facial Emotion Recognition Task (FERT) ……………….………………................………… 21

               Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma ………………………………………..…………...............……… 22

               Psychopathy ………………………………………………………......……...............……………. 24

Results …………………………………………………………………………........……...............…………. 25

    Psychopathy and Emotion Perception ……………………………….………………...............……… 25

    Individual Difference and Interpersonal Influences on Cooperation in PD …..............…….... 28

Discussion ………………………………………………………………………………......................……... 31

    Limitations and Future Directions ……………………………………….……...............…………….. 36

References ………………………………………………………………….......………..............…………... 39

Tables ……………………………………………………………………........……………...............……….. 57

T1: Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations with confidence intervals for psychopathy measures

…………………………………………………………...............................……......................……… 57

    T2: Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations with confidence intervals for facial

    emotion recognition measures ……………………………………………………………................… 58

    T3: Correlations between psychopathic traits and facial emotion recognition measures …... 59

    T4: Paired t-tests of actual vs. estimated proportion of correct responses on the Facial

    Expression Recognition Task by tercile and quartile …………………………………............……. 60

    T5: Regression results using estimated emotion recognition ability as the criterion …...……. 61

    T6: Correlations between psychopathic traits and indices for PD ……………………........…….. 62

    T7: Fixed-Effects ANOVA results using rate of cooperation in PD as the criterion .....….……. 63

    T8: Fixed-Effects ANOVA results using expectation of cooperation in PD as the criterion .... 64

Figures

   F1: Experimental procedure for one round, payoff matrix, and affective feedback congruence

   for each outcome in PD ……………………………………….…………………..................………….. 65

   F2: Average proportion of correct responses for the FERT by tercile and quartile ….....……… 66

   F3: Linear, quadratic, and cubic trends for the relation between estimated and actual emotion

   recognition ability …………………………………………………………...................…….………….. 67

   F4: Estimated vs. actual proportion of correct responses on the FERT …….....……….………... 68

   F5: Box-violin plots of the rate and expectation of cooperation in PD across conditions ….... 69

   F6: Interaction plots of the rate and expectation of cooperation in PD across conditions …... 70

   F7: Three-way interactions between affective feedback congruence, Stroop interference, and

   PPI-R measures on the rate of cooperation in PD ………………………………………...........…… 71

   F8: Three-way interactions between affective feedback congruence, Stroop interference, and

   PPI-R measures on the expectation of cooperation in PD ………………………...…….........…… 72

Appendices

   S1: Fixed-Effects ANOVA results using Machiavellian Egocentricity as the criterion …....….. 73

   S2: Fixed-Effects ANOVA results using Machiavellian Egocentricity as the criterion ……...... 74

   S3: Means and standard deviations for the rate of cooperation in PD …………….....…...…….. 75

   S4: Three-way interaction between PPI-R total score, affective feedback congruence, and

   Stroop interference on the rate and expectation of cooperation in PD ………....…..………….. 76

   S5: Three-way interaction between PPI-R Fearless Dominance, affective feedback

   congruence, and Stroop interference on the rate and expectation of cooperation in PD …..... 77

   S6: Three-way interaction between PPI-R Stress Immunity, affective feedback congruence,

   and Stroop interference on the rate and expectation of cooperation in PD ………………......... 78

   S7: Three-way interaction between PPI-R Social Influence, affective feedback congruence,

   and Stroop interference on the rate and expectation of cooperation in PD …………....……..... 79

   S8: Three-way interaction between PPI-R Fearlessness, affective feedback congruence, and

   Stroop interference on the rate and expectation of cooperation in PD ….............................. 80

   S9: Three-way interaction between PPI-R Self-Centered Impulsivity, affective feedback

   congruence, and Stroop interference on the rate and expectation of cooperation in PD …..... 81

   S10: Three-way interaction between PPI-R Carefree Nonplanfulness, affective feedback

   congruence, and Stroop interference on the rate and expectation of cooperation in PD …..... 82

   S11: Three-way interaction between PPI-R Machiavellian Egocentricity, affective feedback

   congruence, and Stroop interference on the rate and expectation of cooperation in PD …..... 83

   S12: Three-way interaction between PPI-R Blame Externalization, affective feedback

   congruence, and Stroop interference on the rate and expectation of cooperation in PD …..... 84

   S13: Three-way interaction between PPI-R Stress Immunity, affective feedback congruence,

   and Stroop interference on the rate and expectation of cooperation in PD …........................ 85

   S14: Three-way interaction between PPI-R Coldheartedness, affective feedback congruence,

   and Stroop interference on the rate and expectation of cooperation in PD ……………....…..... 86

   S15: Rate and expectation of cooperation across the 20-round iterated PD ………….....……… 87

   S16: Distribution of FERT scores ………………………………..…………….………….................…. 88

   S17: Distribution of PPI-R total scores ………………………………..…….............….………...….. 89

   S18: Distribution of PPI-R Self-Centered Impulsivity scores ………..….........….……………….. 90

   S19: Distribution of PPI-R Fearless Dominance scores ………….…...........…..…...……………… 91

   S20: Distribution of PPI-R Coldheartedness scores ………….………..……..............…………….. 92

   S21: Distribution of PPI-R Machiavellian Egocentricity scores …………...........…………..……. 93

   S22: Distribution of PPI-R Blame Externalization scores …………..……………..........…………. 94

   S23: Distribution of PPI-R Rebellious Nonconformity scores ………..……...........……………… 95

   S24: Distribution of PPI-R Social Influence scores ………………………….…............…………… 96

   S25: Distribution of PPI-R Carefree Nonplanfulness scores ……………….........…………...…… 97

   S26: Distribution of PPI-R Fearlessness scores ………………………………............………..……. 98

   S27: Distribution of PPI-R Stress Immunity scores .……………………….............…….……..…. 99

About this Honors Thesis

Rights statement

• Permission granted by the author to include this thesis or dissertation in this repository. All rights reserved by the author. Please contact the author for information regarding the reproduction and use of this thesis or dissertation.

School	Emory College
Department	Psychology
Degree	B.A.
Submission	Honors Thesis
Language	English
Research Field	Psychology, Personality Psychology, Clinical Psychology, General
Keyword	Personality Prisoner's Dilemma Emotion Perception Psychopathy Reverse Appraisal
Committee Chair / Thesis Advisor	Andrew Kazama, Emory University
Committee Members	Umberto Mignozzetti, Emory University Michal Arbilly, Emory University Stephan Hamann, Emory University

Last modified

Primary PDF

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions
	The Influence of Psychopathic Traits and Affective Feedback on Cooperation in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma ()	2022-04-12 18:37:15 -0400	Press to Select an action Download

Supplemental Files

Thumbnail	Title	Date Uploaded	Actions