Observer Experiments: Studies in Culturally Filtered Perception Carnegie Mellon University: Dr. Katia Sycara, Dr. Laurie Weingart, Dr. Roie Zivan University.

Observer Experiments: Studies in Culturally Filtered Perception

• Carnegie Mellon University: Dr. Katia Sycara, Dr. Laurie Weingart, Dr. Roie Zivan

• University of Pittsburgh: Dr. Michael Lewis

MURI 14 Program Review-- September 10, 2009

2

Observer ExperimentsHe is insulting me by talking so much about

the quality of my goods!

He keeps changing the Subject. He must be trying to

Cheat me!


3

A’s culture

A’s history with B

Context

B’s culture

B’s history with A

ContextB’s behavior

A’s interpretation of B’s intent

A’s real intent

A’s behavior

B’s interpretation of A’s intent

B’s real intent

B’s schema

A’s schema

B’s schema

A’s schema

Capturing initial state of model

State Space

Initial Beliefs

Actions

Observations

Transition

Reward

Reward

Observer Experiments


4

Why we need Observer functions

• Party A responds to his perception of Party B’s:– Actions– Intentions– Predispositions

• Party B does the same• Neither party can perceive the true goals,

intentions, or beliefs of the other


5

Observer functions


6

Observer Functions may be influenced by

• Social Motives Orientation of observer

• Observer personality

• Culturally filtered perceptions

• Cultural stereotypes toward other culture

• Cultural stereotypes toward own culture

• Culturally influenced interpretations of behavior


7

Study of Observer Functions

• Allows isolating perception of individuals, culture and negotiation from goals and intentions of an active participant

• Models both intercultural and intracultural (personality) differences

• Provides a way to specify proximal stimuli involved in negotiating behavior


8

Experimental Plan• Videos and questionnaires integrated as Qualtrics

survey• Uses Merchant scenario from survey studies• Attribute items derived from Georgetown survey• Pilot testing (continuing) administered in lab for

US & Middle Eastern students• Web accessible version to include foreign

language subtitles and to-be-developed payment and consent mechanisms


9

Experimental SequenceCultural demographic (items)

Social motive orientation (items)

Picture of negotiators and narrative description (presentation)

Attribute scales (items)

Video segment 1- exposition (presentation)



Video segment 2- issues (presentation)

Video segment 3- blow-up Video segment 3- compromise Video segment 3- expand (presentation)


Outcome scales (items)

Personal demographics (items)


10

Social Motive items


11

Social Motive Items (cont)


12














13

Static Narrative


14














15

Questions for the “Observer Experiment” Please circle your amount of agreement with the statements below on the scale from 1 to 7:1. Strongly disagree 2.Disagree 3.Slightly disagree 4.Neither agree nor disagree 5.Slightly

agree 6. Agree 7. Strongly agree.Respect:1. Paul/Nabil is honorable.

a. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Paul/Nabil has strong negotiating skills.1. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Paul]/Nabil allowed the other merchant to save “face” (maintain his reputation).1. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

a. I respect Paul/Nabil.1. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Paul/Nabil respects the other merchant.• Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7• Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Paul/Nabil uses non respectful strategies.1. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


16

Trustworthiness:1. Paul/Nabil is trustworthy.

a. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Paul/Nabil is honest.a. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. I would ask Paul/Nabil for a recommendation on a carpet next time I am interested in buying one.a. Nabil? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b. Paul? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. I believe Paul/Nabil will be interested in doing business with his current partner in the future.a. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. I believe Nabil would ship a low quality product if he knew that Paul would not find out. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. I believe Paul would complain about the quality of the product if he knew that it would result in a reduction of the price.1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. I would consider doing business with Paul/Nabil.a. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Paul/Nabil cheats .a. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


17

Cooperation vs Competition (social motive):

1.Paul/Nabil is trying to maximize his own gain regardless of the outcome for the other merchant.a.Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b.Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2.Paul’s/Nabil’s goal is to meet the other merchant half way on issues.a.Nabil? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b.Paul? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3.Paul/Nabil is trying to minimize the gain of the other merchant.1.Nabil? 1 2 3 4 5 6 72.Paul? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

a.Paul/Nabil is trying to get a much better outcome for himself than for the other merchant.1.Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 72.Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

b.Paul/Nabil is interested to work out a solution that serves both of their interests as much as possible.1.Nabil? 1 2 3 4 5 6 72.Paul? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


18

Altruism vs Self Interested:1. Paul/Nabil would do what he can to help the other merchant.

a. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Paul/Nabil would do what he can to increase his own outcome, especially at the expense of the other merchant.a. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Fairness of process:1. Paul/Nabil is giving the other merchant’s perspective fair consideration.

1. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

a. Paul/Nabil dominates the conversation.a. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

b. Paul/Nabil listens to what the other merchant has to say.1. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

c. Paul/Nabil is a fair negotiator.a. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


19

Fairness of outcome: (only at end)1. The agreement was fair to Paul/Nabil:

a. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. The agreement was equitable to Paul/Nabil.a. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. The agreement was just from Paul/Nabil’s perspective.a. Nabil 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b. Paul 1 2 3 4 5 6 7(after each clip)

4. Paul/Nabil considers the following to be a fair outcome:a. 70% for himself and 30% for the other.

a. Nabil? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b. Paul? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

b. 50% each.a. Nabil? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b. Paul? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

• 30% for himself and 70% for the other.a. Nabil? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7b. Paul? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


20














21

Video Clip: Introducing the Issues


22














23

Video Clip 2: advocating positions


24














25

Video Clip 3: resolution “blow-up”


26














27

Video Clip 3: resolution Compromise


28














29

Video Clip 3: resolution expand the pie


30

Experimental Design

OUTCOME US Middle Eastern

Blow-Up

Compromise

Expand


31


32


33


34


35

Data Analysis

• Repeated administration of convergent attitude items will support:– POMDP and other Bayesian models by

providing priors and state measures following transitions

– Psychometrically valid scales for investigating observer attitude and attitude change across the course of the negotiation

Observer Experiments: Studies in Culturally Filtered Perception Carnegie Mellon University: Dr. Katia Sycara, Dr. Laurie Weingart, Dr. Roie Zivan University.

Documents

program review

social motive items

survey studies attribute

schema bs schema

observer functions party

negotiating behavior

blowup video segment

perception of party