Author
Nils C. Köbis
Other affiliations: International Business Broker's Association, VU University Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam
Bio: Nils C. Köbis is an academic researcher from Max Planck Society. The author has contributed to research in topics: Corruption & Computer science. The author has an hindex of 12, co-authored 34 publications receiving 2286 citations. Previous affiliations of Nils C. Köbis include International Business Broker's Association & VU University Amsterdam.
Topics: Corruption, Computer science, Language change, Medicine, Turing test
Papers
More filters
University of California, Santa Barbara1, University of Texas at Austin2, University of Wrocław3, Dresden University of Technology4, University of Tartu5, Gulu University6, Middle East University7, Stockholm University8, University of the Punjab9, University of Nigeria, Nsukka10, Istanbul University11, Franklin & Marshall College12, Norwegian University of Science and Technology13, University of Algiers14, Australian National University15, Russian Academy of Sciences16, Russian State University for the Humanities17, İzmir University of Economics18, University of Social Sciences and Humanities19, Université catholique de Louvain20, Ankara University21, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru22, Cumhuriyet University23, University of the Republic24, ISCTE – University Institute of Lisbon25, The Chinese University of Hong Kong26, National Autonomous University of Mexico27, University of Pécs28, University of Constantine the Philosopher29, University of Maribor30, University of Zagreb31, University of Malaya32, Central University of Finance and Economics33, University of Crete34, University of Primorska35, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology36, University of Amsterdam37, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart38, VU University Amsterdam39, University of Granada40, University of Delhi41, University of Havana42, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro43, University of Vienna44, Universiti Utara Malaysia45, Vilnius University46, University of British Columbia47, University of Sussex48, Romanian Academy49, Slovak Academy of Sciences50, Comenius University in Bratislava51, University of Monterrey52, SAS Institute53, DHA Suffa University54, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile55, South-West University "Neofit Rilski"56, University of São Paulo57, Kyung Hee University58, University of Ljubljana59
TL;DR: This work combines this large cross-cultural sample with agent-based models to compare eight hypothesized models of human mating markets and finds that this cross-culturally universal pattern of mate choice is most consistent with a Euclidean model of mate preference integration.
Abstract: Humans express a wide array of ideal mate preferences. Around the world, people desire romantic partners who are intelligent, healthy, kind, physically attractive, wealthy, and more. In order for these ideal preferences to guide the choice of actual romantic partners, human mating psychology must possess a means to integrate information across these many preference dimensions into summaries of the overall mate value of their potential mates. Here we explore the computational design of this mate preference integration process using a large sample of n = 14,487 people from 45 countries around the world. We combine this large cross-cultural sample with agent-based models to compare eight hypothesized models of human mating markets. Across cultures, people higher in mate value appear to experience greater power of choice on the mating market in that they set higher ideal standards, better fulfill their preferences in choice, and pair with higher mate value partners. Furthermore, we find that this cross-culturally universal pattern of mate choice is most consistent with a Euclidean model of mate preference integration.
1,827 citations
University of California, Santa Barbara1, University of Texas at Austin2, Dresden University of Technology3, University of Wrocław4, Opole University5, University of Tartu6, Gulu University7, Middle East University8, Stockholm University9, University of the Punjab10, University of Nigeria, Nsukka11, Istanbul University12, Franklin & Marshall College13, Norwegian University of Science and Technology14, University of Algiers15, Australian National University16, Russian Academy of Sciences17, Russian State University for the Humanities18, İzmir University of Economics19, University of Social Sciences and Humanities20, Université catholique de Louvain21, Ankara University22, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru23, Cumhuriyet University24, University of the Republic25, ISCTE – University Institute of Lisbon26, The Chinese University of Hong Kong27, National Autonomous University of Mexico28, University of Pécs29, University of Maribor30, University of Zagreb31, University of Malaya32, Central University of Finance and Economics33, University of Crete34, University of Primorska35, University of Amsterdam36, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart37, VU University Amsterdam38, University of Granada39, University of Delhi40, University of Havana41, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro42, University of Vienna43, Universiti Utara Malaysia44, Vilnius University45, University of British Columbia46, Centre national de la recherche scientifique47, Romanian Academy48, Slovak Academy of Sciences49, Comenius University in Bratislava50, University of Monterrey51, DHA Suffa University52, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile53, South-West University "Neofit Rilski"54, University of São Paulo55, Kyung Hee University56, University of Ljubljana57
TL;DR: Using a new 45-country sample (N = 14,399), this work attempted to replicate classic studies and test both the evolutionary and biosocial role perspectives, finding neither pathogen prevalence nor gender equality robustly predicted sex differences or preferences across countries.
Abstract: Considerable research has examined human mate preferences across cultures, finding universal sex differences in preferences for attractiveness and resources as well as sources of systematic cultural variation. Two competing perspectives-an evolutionary psychological perspective and a biosocial role perspective-offer alternative explanations for these findings. However, the original data on which each perspective relies are decades old, and the literature is fraught with conflicting methods, analyses, results, and conclusions. Using a new 45-country sample (N = 14,399), we attempted to replicate classic studies and test both the evolutionary and biosocial role perspectives. Support for universal sex differences in preferences remains robust: Men, more than women, prefer attractive, young mates, and women, more than men, prefer older mates with financial prospects. Cross-culturally, both sexes have mates closer to their own ages as gender equality increases. Beyond age of partner, neither pathogen prevalence nor gender equality robustly predicted sex differences or preferences across countries.
129 citations
University of Oregon1, University of Nevada, Reno2, Singapore Management University3, Addis Ababa University4, Koç University5, National University of Malaysia6, National Chung Cheng University7, Soochow University (Suzhou)8, Jahangirnagar University9, Mount Meru University10, University of Crete11, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv12, Kathmandu University13, University of Gdańsk14, Mahidol University15, University of Leicester16, De La Salle University17, National University of Rosario18, Central Philippine University19, Bielefeld University20, Otaru University of Commerce21, Rovira i Virgili University22, University of Málaga23, University of Lima24, University of Delhi25, National University of San Marcos26, Federal University of Uberlandia27, University of Nairobi28, Chulalongkorn University29, University of Lethbridge30, Autonomous University of Sinaloa31, I-Shou University32, St. Xavier's College-Autonomous, Mumbai33, Sabancı University34, University of Manitoba35, Suzhou University of Science and Technology36, Moscow State University37, Australian National University38, Belmont University39, Yonsei University40, Federal University of Bahia41, University of San Andrés42, American University in Cairo43, University of Asia and the Pacific44, Institute of Technology, Carlow45, VU University Amsterdam46, National Autonomous University of Mexico47, University of New Mexico48, University of Buenos Aires49
TL;DR: The authors found that the largest differences were not in those contents most frequently emphasized in cross-cultural psychology (e.g., values, social axioms, cultural tightness), but instead in contents involving religion, regularity-norm behaviors, family roles and living arrangements, and ethnonationalism.
Abstract: We know that there are cross-cultural differences in psychological variables, such as individualism/collectivism. But it has not been clear which of these variables show relatively the greatest differences. The Survey of World Views project operated from the premise that such issues are best addressed in a diverse sampling of countries representing a majority of the world's population, with a very large range of item-content. Data were collected online from 8,883 individuals (almost entirely college students based on local publicizing efforts) in 33 countries that constitute more than two third of the world's population, using items drawn from measures of nearly 50 variables. This report focuses on the broadest patterns evident in item data. The largest differences were not in those contents most frequently emphasized in cross-cultural psychology (e.g., values, social axioms, cultural tightness), but instead in contents involving religion, regularity-norm behaviors, family roles and living arrangements, and ethnonationalism. Content not often studied cross-culturally (e.g., materialism, Machiavellianism, isms dimensions, moral foundations) demonstrated moderate-magnitude differences. Further studies are needed to refine such conclusions, but indications are that cross-cultural psychology may benefit from casting a wider net in terms of the psychological variables of focus.
91 citations
TL;DR: This article conducted two experiments assessing behavioral reactions to the state-of-the-art Natural Language Generation algorithm GPT-2 (Ntotal number of samples generated by the algorithm =830) using the identical starting lines of human poems.
86 citations
TL;DR: It is indicated that perceived descriptive norms can impact corrupt behavior and, possibly, could offer an explanation for inter-personal and inter-cultural variation in corrupt behavior in the real world.
Abstract: Corruption poses one of the major societal challenges of our time. Considerable advances have been made in understanding corruption on a macro level, yet the psychological antecedents of corrupt behavior remain largely unknown. In order to explain why some people engage in corruption while others do not, we explored the impact of descriptive social norms on corrupt behavior by using a novel behavioral measure of corruption. We conducted three studies to test whether perceived descriptive norms of corruption (i.e. the belief about the prevalence of corruption in a specific context) influence corrupt behavior. The results indicated that descriptive norms highly correlate with corrupt behavior—both when measured before (Study 1) or after (Study 2) the behavioral measure of corruption. Finally, we adopted an experimental design to investigate the causal effect of descriptive norms on corruption (Study 3). Corrupt behavior in the corruption game significantly drops when participants receive short anti-corruption descriptive norm primes prior to the game. These findings indicate that perceived descriptive norms can impact corrupt behavior and, possibly, could offer an explanation for inter-personal and inter-cultural variation in corrupt behavior in the real world. We discuss implications of these findings and draw avenues for future research.
79 citations
Cited by
More filters
Journal Article•
TL;DR: Prospect Theory led cognitive psychology in a new direction that began to uncover other human biases in thinking that are probably not learned but are part of the authors' brain’s wiring.
Abstract: In 1974 an article appeared in Science magazine with the dry-sounding title “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases” by a pair of psychologists who were not well known outside their discipline of decision theory. In it Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman introduced the world to Prospect Theory, which mapped out how humans actually behave when faced with decisions about gains and losses, in contrast to how economists assumed that people behave. Prospect Theory turned Economics on its head by demonstrating through a series of ingenious experiments that people are much more concerned with losses than they are with gains, and that framing a choice from one perspective or the other will result in decisions that are exactly the opposite of each other, even if the outcomes are monetarily the same. Prospect Theory led cognitive psychology in a new direction that began to uncover other human biases in thinking that are probably not learned but are part of our brain’s wiring.
4,351 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: Thaler and Sunstein this paper described a general explanation of and advocacy for libertarian paternalism, a term coined by the authors in earlier publications, as a general approach to how leaders, systems, organizations, and governments can nudge people to do the things the nudgers want and need done for the betterment of the nudgees, or of society.
Abstract: NUDGE: IMPROVING DECISIONS ABOUT HEALTH, WEALTH, AND HAPPINESS by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein Penguin Books, 2009, 312 pp, ISBN 978-0-14-311526-7This book is best described formally as a general explanation of and advocacy for libertarian paternalism, a term coined by the authors in earlier publications. Informally, it is about how leaders, systems, organizations, and governments can nudge people to do the things the nudgers want and need done for the betterment of the nudgees, or of society. It is paternalism in the sense that "it is legitimate for choice architects to try to influence people's behavior in order to make their lives longer, healthier, and better", (p. 5) It is libertarian in that "people should be free to do what they like - and to opt out of undesirable arrangements if they want to do so", (p. 5) The built-in possibility of opting out or making a different choice preserves freedom of choice even though people's behavior has been influenced by the nature of the presentation of the information or by the structure of the decisionmaking system. I had never heard of libertarian paternalism before reading this book, and I now find it fascinating.Written for a general audience, this book contains mostly social and behavioral science theory and models, but there is considerable discussion of structure and process that has roots in mathematical and quantitative modeling. One of the main applications of this social system is economic choice in investing, selecting and purchasing products and services, systems of taxes, banking (mortgages, borrowing, savings), and retirement systems. Other quantitative social choice systems discussed include environmental effects, health care plans, gambling, and organ donations. Softer issues that are also subject to a nudge-based approach are marriage, education, eating, drinking, smoking, influence, spread of information, and politics. There is something in this book for everyone.The basis for this libertarian paternalism concept is in the social theory called "science of choice", the study of the design and implementation of influence systems on various kinds of people. The terms Econs and Humans, are used to refer to people with either considerable or little rational decision-making talent, respectively. The various libertarian paternalism concepts and systems presented are tested and compared in light of these two types of people. Two foundational issues that this book has in common with another book, Network of Echoes: Imitation, Innovation and Invisible Leaders, that was also reviewed for this issue of the Journal are that 1 ) there are two modes of thinking (or components of the brain) - an automatic (intuitive) process and a reflective (rational) process and 2) the need for conformity and the desire for imitation are powerful forces in human behavior. …
3,435 citations
1,314 citations
704 citations