  In daily life, subjects often face a social dilemma in two stages. In Stage
1, they recognize the social dilemma structure of the decision problem at hand
(a tension between personal interest and collective interest); in Stage 2, they
have to choose between gathering additional information to learn the exact
payoffs corresponding to each of the two options or making a choice without
looking at the payoffs. While previous theoretical research suggests that the
mere act of considering one's strategic options in a social dilemma will be met
with distrust, no experimental study has tested this hypothesis. What does
"looking at payoffs" signal in observers? Do observers' beliefs actually match
decision makers' intentions? Experiment 1 shows that the actual action of
looking at payoffs signals selfish behavior, but it does not actually mean so.
Experiments 2 and 3 show that, when the action of looking at payoffs is
replaced by a self-report question asking the extent to which participants look
at payoffs in their everyday lives, subjects in high looking mode are indeed
more selfish than those in low looking mode, and this is correctly predicted by
observers. These results support Rand and colleagues' Social Heuristics
Hypothesis and the novel "cooperate without looking" model by Yoeli, Hoffman,
and Nowak. However, Experiment 1 shows that actual looking may lead to
different results, possibly caused by the emergence of a moral cleansing
effect.
