Rumors, Untruths Combined With ErbB

Finally, Study 2 also included matched gambles, as in Bixter and Luhmann (2014). Matched gambles were like standard gambles but with the loss amount halved, so that the potential loss to the subject from taking a matched gamble was the same as from taking a shared gamble. (The potential gain, and the probabilities of gain and loss, were the same between matched and ErbB shared gambles as well, but these were equal among all gamble types. Together, these facts imply that a matched gamble had not just the same expected value for the subject as a shared gamble, but the identical probability distribution of outcomes for the subject.) Thus, subjects who were entirely indifferent to the welfare of their partners should have treated matched gambles the same as shared gambles. 3.1. Method 3.1.1. Subjects Subjects were 34 undergraduates at Stony Brook University run in pairs. All subjects were native speakers of English. There were 4 male�Cmale dyads, 4 female�Cfemale dyads, and 9 opposite-gender dyads. Ages ranged from 18 to 26. Subjects received partial course credit and $5 for participation. 3.1.2. Tasks 3.1.2.1. Relationship closeness induction task Dyads completed a form of the Relationship Closeness Induction Task (RCIT; Sedikides et al., 1999). The RCIT is similar to the method of inducing interpersonal closeness described by Aron et al. (1997), but much shorter. Subjects were given lists of questions to ask each other and answer. Questions become progressively more intimate over the course of the task, ranging from ��Where are you from?�� to ��What would be the perfect lifestyle for you?�� to ��What's your most frightening early memory?.�� Subjects were allowed to finish all the questions at their own pace. The task took 10�C15 min per dyad. 3.1.2.2. Gambling task In Study 2, unlike Study 1, subjects were told there were two partners: the ��local partner,�� the subject's dyadic counterpart, and the ��remote partner,�� an unseen and unnamed other person at another university. In reality, the remote partner did not exist. Whereas Study 1 offered one type of shared gamble, Study 2 offered three (see Figure ?Figure1,1, lower row). All ostensibly inflicted half the loss amount on a third party. Which third party was exposed to loss depended on the gamble type. Local shared gambles exposed the local partner to loss. Remote shared gambles exposed the remote partner to loss. Deceit gambles exposed the local partner to loss (like local shared gambles); however, any loss sustained by the local partner would be attributed to the actions of the remote partner rather than the subject. Study 2 also had an additional gamble type, the matched gamble. Matched gambles were like standard gambles but with the loss amount halved. Thus, subjects who were entirely indifferent to the welfare of their partners should have treated matched gambles the same as shared gambles.