BJKS Podcast

68. Isabel Thielmann: Economic games, personality, and affordances

March 19, 2023
BJKS Podcast
68. Isabel Thielmann: Economic games, personality, and affordances
Show Notes Transcript Chapter Markers

Isabel Thielmann is a research group leader at the Max Planck Institute for the study of crime, security and law. In this conversation, we talk about her background as a competitive sprinter, her research on prosocial behaviour and personality, the role of affordances, how game theory and interdependence theory can helpus understand human social behaviour, and Isa's experiences in having started a lab.

BJKS Podcast is a podcast about neuroscience, psychology, and anything vaguely related, hosted by Benjamin James Kuper-Smith.

Support the show: https://geni.us/bjks-patreon

Timestamps
0:00:04: Isa used to be a pretty good sprinter
0:11:03: Lessons from athletics
0:16:40: How Isa got into psychology and doing science
0:26:47: Breadth vs depth in research topics
0:33:32: Start discussing Isa's review article 'Economics Games: an introduction and guide for research'
0:46:06: What are game theory and interdependence theory?
0:59:06: Affordances and economic games
1:10:44: Personality and economic games
1:34:20: Isa's experiences starting her lab and becoming a PI

Podcast links

Isa's links

Ben's links


References
Amir, Rand & Gal (2012). Economic games on the internet: The effect of $1 stakes. PloS one.
Cameron (1999). Raising the stakes in the ultimatum game: Experimental evidence from Indonesia. Econ Inquiry.
Columbus, Münich & Gerpott (2020). Playing a different game: Situation perception mediates framing effects on cooperative behaviour. J Exp Soc Psych.
Diehl, Thielmann, Thiel, Mayer, Zipfel & Schneider (2014). Possibilities to support elite adolescent athletes in improving performance: Results from a qualitative content analysis. Science & sports.
Galizzi & Navarro-Martinez (2019). On the external validity of social preference games: a systematic lab-field study. Management Science.
Halevy, Chou & Murnighan (2012). Mind games: the mental representation of conflict. J perso and soc psych.
Kuper-Smith, Voulgaris, Briken, Fuss & Korn (2022). Social preferences and psychopathy in a sample of male prisoners. PsyArXiv.
Liebrand (1984). The effect of social motives, communication and group size on behaviour in an N‐person multi‐stage mixed‐motive game. Eur J soc psych.
Peysakhovich, Nowak & Rand (2014). Humans display a ‘cooperative phenotype’that is domain general and temporally stable. Nat Comm.
Thielmann, Böhm, Ott & Hilbig (2021). Economic games: An introduction and guide for research. Collabra: Psych.
Thielmann & Hilbig (2015). Trust: An integrative review from a person–situation perspective. Review of Gen Psych.
Thielmann, Spadaro & Balliet (2020). Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis. Psych Bull.

Adam Mastroianni's article on conversational doorknobs: https://experimentalhistory.substack.com/p/good-conversations-have-lots-of-doorknobs

[This is an automated transcript that contains many errors]

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: [00:00:00] Yeah, I mean, so, uh, but bef I guess we're gonna talk mainly about economic games and, uh, personality and prosocial behaving, kind of how they relate. Uh, before we do that, I thought we could, uh, talk about something that's, um, I guess slightly unusual if about you, or at least something I found on UVI that I haven't seen on anyone else's cvi. 
 
 

Uh, and that is that you had a sports scholarship and in particular, it seems like you used to be, or maybe still are. I don't know, but I you definitely used to be a pretty good sprinter, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: I was it. It's really long ago. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Okay. Okay. You were then. Yeah, I was just curious like, yeah, kind of like what was your relationship to maybe sports in general, but athletics and sprinting in particular, and kind of how did that get. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Mm. Yeah, so actually, uh, I started doing athletics when I was really young, like a small kid. Um, uh, actually I think I was six years old or [00:01:00] so. And, uh, yeah, from that time onwards, I just loved doing it. And when I was, I don't know, an adolescent say like 14, 15, um, that's the time when you start to specialize in a certain discipline. 
 
 

And so I realized, okay, I'm, I'm not so slow, so, um, I'm actually quite fast, so maybe it makes sense to specialize in sprint or on the short track. And, uh, yeah, that's what I basically did then. And um, then actually when I finished school and looked for universities, uh, I basically selected the university based on. 
 
 

Where I could find a good team to, um, yeah, to continue sprinting. And, uh, I think I did that until the end of my masters. So before I started the PhD, I quit. I had quite a few injuries and I don't know, then you also realized [00:02:00] that you may not go to the Olympics or really earn money with it. And that was the time when I started to prioritize and actually yeah, go into academia. 
 
 

Um, but yeah, that, uh, is actually, I, I loved it and uh, it's a really important aspect of who I am and yeah, of my. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I'm curious, like how, so like, I guess you said like when you were, um, say it from being a teenager onwards, basically you started to specialize. Like how, how early was it kind of clear that you were, that you had some talent or that maybe you could uh, I dunno whether that it was really worth supporting and going for it and kind of seeing where it, where it leads you. 
 
 

Was it like super obvious from the beginning that you were just always the fastest or did it happen only a bit later? 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: I mean, I guess there was some talent apparent already when I was younger, but it [00:03:00] wasn't really only in Sprint. So I mean, you're basically doing all the different disciplines in athletics when you're a child. So I was also, um, a decent, long jumper, for example, or a high jump. Was also something, um, that was quite okay at least. 
 
 

But yeah, I don't know at a certain point you just realized. Okay. Um, so for example, when you, I, I won a championship, which was relatively important at the time. And then of course you realize, okay, it seems I do have a talent here. And I mean, I loved doing it, so I simply continued. And then it was just natural, you know, and it, it just became really an important aspect of my life, of my actually daily life. 
 
 

Because you have like training basically every day. And yeah, it just happened. I don't know a specific time when I realized, okay, this, this could go further. But yeah, it, it was just a natural or yeah, develop.[00:04:00]  
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Hmm. Yeah. By the way, what's the, like, this is pretty specific, but like what's the kind of training regimen for someone who's a sprinter? Because I mean, I've, I mean I've, I've, I've, I was athletic for most of my life, but, um, never, let's say it took me like at least 50, 60 meters to get up to speed. Like, I was not a sprinter. 
 
 

I was more like a, I guess middle distance was, was what I was best at. Like I could hold the speed for quite a while, but like, it, it took me a bit to get there. And, um, so I know like roughly that there, you know, you do, I mean, I guess it also suited my personality in a way, like doing this like 25 minute runs or something is what I just, I mean, I never trained for it properly with athletics. 
 
 

I just went for a run and enjoyed it. And it turned out that that was actually probably pretty good training that I did. But I'm curious, like, is it just doing sprints or weight training or do you also do long runs or like what's the kind of training regimen for someone who's trying to be a sprinter? 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: I mean, longer runs is something that sprinters hate. So really 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. I see. So 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: are always the ones who are super [00:05:00] slowly when they warm up, for example, they just. I don't know, maybe run four or five minutes very, very slowly. And everyone else is laughing at the printers because they are so, um, yeah, so slow when, when they are warming up, and as I said, they really hate long distances. 
 
 

But of course you really have to do different things. I mean, uh, for one, you do a sprint, but that involves like technical training, for example. But it also, for example, involves that you do over distance runs. So when your discipline is say, 100 meters, what you also do is of course you, um, do runs of 200 meters, 150 meters, these sort of things. 
 
 

Of course, then, yeah, uh, lifting and everything that belongs to this. Also, a lot of jumping actually. So it's a really diverse training. So it, it seems like, or it [00:06:00] sounds like you're just, Sprinting, but this is not the case. So you really do very different things and you have a very specific schedule and plan that you follow. 
 
 

Um, and it also, of course changes like in the autumn, in fall for example. You start with very basic stuff and then it's getting more and more specialized until January when the championships are approaching. So yeah, it's really a very 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: So like the off-season, on-season kind of thing? Oh yeah. Okay, okay. Yeah, yeah. No, as it's a sha it's really weird because in a way I was, I was fairly solid at the middle distances, but somehow I never joined a club or anything. It's a shame because I guess it would've been really interesting also for me to see like where it would've le like gone, but 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, absolutely. It's, it's really a shame because also, I mean, when you are in a club, it's, it's so nice because you have a team. Uh, it's, although of course when, uh, you are on the track, then it's just you. So it's not a team sports. But nonetheless, of course, you have a team, um, with which you [00:07:00] are training. 
 
 

And, uh, it's actually, yeah, very close relationships that develop, uh, develop that way, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah. Yeah. No, I just went through it. . I just ran through the woods because it was close , and then, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: now I do the 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah, it was nice and relaxing. Yeah. Yeah. Oh yeah. So now you do, you don't just like trot around slowly for five minutes and then sprint twice and 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: No, actually I really changed. I mean, I also, for example, ran, uh, or completed three health half marathons I think in my life. So I really changed completely and now I'm so slow . Um, but, but yeah, I actually enjoy also running for longer. So that really changed a lot. And if you would've told me 15 years ago, probably, I wouldn't have believed you. 
 
 

But yeah, now I'm, I really enjoy going for a long distance run. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Okay. Cool. Um, yeah, I guess I'm just a little bit curious about the, you mentioned, I guess that you, [00:08:00] if I remember correctly, that you stopped. At the end of your master's, basically. But was it until then that it was really full on? Or like did you like gradually it as like, ah, this is, you know, there are very, very few people who actually make a living from this? 
 
 

Yeah, I guess like, maybe, maybe our questions kind of like it. Was it because you still decided to study for your bachelor's, assuming like directly after school, more or less? Um, I mean, was it just a thing where it's like obvious, okay, this is not something that's to end a career. Um, this is something I enjoy doing and then I have to do something to actually earn money 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah. I mean, I guess I was always that realistic. So, um, I guess I, I knew that I wasn't that talented to, uh, yeah, make up for a living with, um, athletics. But nonetheless, I mean, I really enjoyed it. To, to just do it. And, uh, as I said, I really did it seriously. Like, um, I think in my peak time I, uh, trained eight times a week. 
 
 

So it was really like two days [00:09:00] training twice. Um, and only the Sunday was basically free. And yeah, so, so I really took this seriously. But I also, I was aware that I would not do that forever and that a, at a certain point in time, I would have to shift priorities. And then I think, um, during my masters, there were really like lots of injuries. 
 
 

Um, and that was also the time where I started realizing that this might end sooner than later, but it still took me maybe a year or so to really make the decision. Um, but it was also then good to know that I had a plan for. What, what came next? You know, like after completing the Masters, I really wanted to pursue a PhD program, and so I knew that there was something new, a new challenge coming, and that maybe made it easier for me to [00:10:00] quit sports and to really start 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I mean, I guess you were quitting for something, right? As like you're quitting to do something else rather than just like, I guess this isn't working. And what now? Okay. By the way, what's it like seeing some people, you know, go to the Olympics? I saw there was, I think, what was it? Wait, I have to look at it. 
 
 

I wrote this down somewhere, uh, that you were part of a team with Rina Z 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: that's 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: who, uh, made to the semi-finals in London, I think. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Actually, actually, um, yeah, that is true. And she was actually the European champion and I was really sitting in front of the TV and celebrating. So it was, it was crazy. I mean, it's, it made you proud in a way that you were allowed to train with these people. So, um, yeah, and I, I really learned a lot from her and also from other people who, uh, then went, for example, to the Olympics. 
 
 

So it was just great to see, you know, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: So what, uh, what do you take [00:11:00] from kind of this background athletics to being a scientist? Like, is there any, in a way it sounds like it's very different because you have lots of people tell you what to do, uh, and then you stick to the thing, you know, you stick to the schedule and you have like, the closer you do that, the better. 
 
 

And, but yeah. I'm, I'm curious, like what are some commonalities there? Also, just some stuff you learned during that time from. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, I think I actually learned a lot. And, um, one thing for example is that you have to be disciplined in a way to reach your goals, right? You have a goal, you set that goal, and then you work towards achieving that goal. And I think there are lots of similarities actually in academia because you also, you do that of course because, for example, you want to advance science, or, I mean, you also at a certain point want to get a tenured position and there are certain things that you have to do to eventually reach that goal. 
 
 

And I think that is actually very similar in in sports. [00:12:00] As it is, uh, in, in academia and yeah, in general to, as I said, to work in a diligent and organized way towards these goals. This is really, and also to, to accept that you can't always win. Uh, so you really learn losing, um, this is also something and uh, yeah, if you do and you always, yeah, it always happens. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: No, no. I mean like you, you'll lose, but some people don't lose. Learned how to lose roughly. Right. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: that is true, but I mean, then they are really bad losers because you can't always win. But yeah, that is, for example, that's something, um, I learned. And also to know how to manage frustration and to cope with also negative situations. These are all to, to become more resistant, you know, these are all things that you learn in sports. 
 
 

So I really learned a lot for my entire life, I think. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Also stuff like injuries and that kind of stuff, because I guess that must have been like, [00:13:00] it sounds like it came like at a really bad time also, like when you were really getting good at it. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: So that's really frustrating. And I mean, you work so hard and then something happens and you can't do anything about it, but then you really, you have to just try again. And, uh, yeah, that's, that's something that you really learn. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: But I guess at some point you just decided you're not gonna try again. So how did 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: is true. But then, as I said, I had a different goal, you know, so I had something to look forward to and something that I also really wanted to do. So I realized, okay, now is a good time to actually, to switch, uh, to a different area, um, to change. I don't know the priorities, and that was totally fine for. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah. Uh, be, before we get to that last question about this, what's the, uh, you mentioned like kind of learned how to work towards a goal and that kind of stuff. I'm just curious, like what's the, it seems to me in [00:14:00] some sense that the kind of goal you have or the way you measure it is. Very different, or to some extent is quite different in athletics and in academia. 
 
 

Cause athletics is get your time lower, right? That's it. And it's an objective measure. Uh, you know, okay, at that date I have to be able to do that. And you know, whereas I guess in academia you do have stuff like, okay, I want to get this paper out or something, but it's much, much fuzzier, right? It's not really, you can get a paper out and you shouldn't have gotten it out. 
 
 

Right. Whereas, I guess usually if you're a sprinter, if you got your time down, that's probably a good thing. . So I'm just curious, like how did, how does that change, like how you think about the goals or does it, you know, this kind of like where one, you have very objective goals that I've objectively measurable, and the other is something that's a lot fuzzier around the edges, or does it not really make a difference to you? 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Um, I mean, I think it today it doesn't make a difference, uh, difference anymore. But yeah, you're right. I mean, in academia maybe you have this, [00:15:00] really this ultimate goal, for example, because if you wanna stay in academia at a certain point you have to get tenure. So this is really like the, the end goal. 
 
 

And you have certain steps in between something like publishing a paper or getting a grant or these sort of things. So I think these are also goals that you can set for yourself, but you are totally right that it's not like in, in, when you're a sprinter, you really have to get at a certain time. That's much more concrete than the goals that you have to set for yourself in, um, academia. 
 
 

But nonetheless, I guess that you can also practice setting more specific goals in academia as well. And then once you reach those goals, you should also be satisfied with yourself and somehow celebrate it in a way so that it doesn't feel that fuzzy as you said, but that you somehow make the goals more concrete. 
 
 

So I don't know whether I [00:16:00] described it in a way that is understandable, but I think even though you have fuzzy goals, you can still try to make them more concrete for yourself to work towards them in a very, uh, organized way. But maybe you have to set them for yourself. Maybe that's the difference. And in sports, it's, as you said, it's really objective and there is someone telling you like you're a coach. 
 
 

that you have to reach this time or, I don't know, jump that high or whatever 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Um, yeah, and I guess like how did you, so I saw you once had a paper very early on a study about supporting elite adolescent athletes. Was that. Your way into science or was that something that happened afterwards and you just happened to have the background in athletics also? Or how did that come about? 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: It was actually, because I was a research assistant in, in a working group where, where they were looking [00:17:00] at Eli's, um, adolescent athletes and yeah, I don't know. I was just somehow involved in that project because actually my plan when I started to study psychology was to become a sports psychologist. So also when I looked for internships for example, or also a position as a research assistant, I tried to already get into this field. 
 
 

And this is how this project somehow came about. And I was really actively involved in the analysis of the paper and also then in the literature search and so on and so forth. And back then my supervisor said, well, you know what? You should be co-author on that paper because you really did a lot of work and you really helped in the process. 
 
 

And that was super nice. I mean, I didn't expect this, uh, because I thought, well, you know, I'm a research assistant, so this is just my job. But, uh, they were very generous with this and actually wanted me to become a co-author. And [00:18:00] that's how I got involved in this. But, um, shortly after that, or I don't know whether it was after that or at around the same time, I realized that research is really my passion. 
 
 

I mean, I really wanted to do research and then I changed plans and decided not to become a sports psychologist, but rather to go, um, into research. and yeah, so this, this was how that paper came about. But then after that, I never ever did any kind of research in that area again. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. So, okay. So you are, I was gonna ask like how you then started getting interested in psychology, but was it from wanting to be a sports psychologist? Was that like the goal early on or? 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: I mean, actually, I, I think I got intrigued in, um, in school because I had a teacher and he told us about Foyt. and psychoanalysis. And back then I found that super interesting. And then [00:19:00] I, um, had to, we, we all had to give a presentation and we could really choose the topic. And what I chose as a topic was psychological disorders because I just found that super interesting and, uh, yeah, and I think I chose eating disorders or something like that. 
 
 

And that was actually at the time, it was I think in the 10th grade when I decided that I really found this interesting and that I started to think about studying psychology. But back then, I hadn't had in mind that sports psychology could be something that only developed later. I think when I really, when I started studying. 
 
 

But before that, I was just interested in psychology and interested in human beings and why they behave the way they do. and that's how I got into it. But when I started studying, I wouldn't have never expected that I end up in research. That was nothing I knew about anything, you know? But yeah, then it just, [00:20:00] uh, developed during the bachelor's. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: by doing 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, exactly. So I did an a research internship, which I really liked. And then, um, I was actually talking to a friend and telling her about it, and I must have been super excited and super passionate. And then she was also a psychologist and she just told me, you know what? I think this is the perfect job for you. 
 
 

You really have to do research. And I know at the time that I was like, still super skeptical whether that's really where I wanna go. But then I don't know, it just, uh, the seed was planted and, uh, That was when I started to yeah, really consider this an option and yeah, already when I looked for a masters, um, or a location, a university where I could do my masters', I really wanted to do or go at a university where they prioritize or focus on research. 
 
 

So yeah,[00:21:00]  
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: So you stayed where you 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: stayed where I was Yeah, where I was. Exactly. Um, yeah, I mean, Manheim had a really good background in, uh, like all the methods stuff. So I thought I'm at a good place to yeah, pursue my, my masters. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Um, yeah, it's just a brief commentary on the, how you figured out like that you liked it. It's funny because like for me, it was very similar because I, well, initially I guess I had the, like quite classic, like second year dip in interest in my studies. Um, and I was like, okay, I'm basically done with this. 
 
 

And I, I came pretty close to quitting the whole thing. And then, uh, in my case it was also an internship where someone's like, oh, you can apply for this scholarship for the summer to do research. And I only applied because I wanted the money from the scholarship to buy a camera. And then , uh, luckily I had very good grades from my first year and they didn't take the second year grades into account. 
 
 

And so I, you know, got the scholarship for, for like 10 weeks or. Got the money, [00:22:00] bought the camera, and then didn't use it for the next year or something. Cause I just really like doing research instead. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: you got hooked? 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: actually have, I've really used the camera though, since, so like, it did get, it did get put to good use. 
 
 

But it's also a thing here where I was like just doing it. I was like, wait, this is really cool. Like, just running these experiments. I mean, obviously I wasn't doing anything right. I was a research assistant. I was just like getting people into the lab and pressing a key and then the whole thing ran. 
 
 

Like, I didn't do much more than that. Right? But somehow this whole, like having an idea, testing it, giving the day to do my supervisor, and then I, in hindsight, I'm actually really impressed how he, how he handled me. Because like I, I now realize how much work it is often to analyze data and think of a new experiment. 
 
 

Whereas for me, I was just like, you know, I guess he didn't expect I was gonna be that enthusiastic. So like, I just ran a whole study in like, you know, two days or something and got all the people and he was like, uh, okay. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: That's exactly 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I, I thought he was like, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: that you wanna have. Really? 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah, but I think he kind of thought like he'd get rid of me for a week or something and I just came back to days [00:23:00] later say, here's your date. 
 
 

He is like, uh, thanks, I guess And I was like, so what's the results? He was like, whoa, I have to look at it. This is not like an immediate thing. Takes some time. Um uh, yeah. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: But yeah, I 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: But yeah, I guess. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: a few people started studying psychology with the idea of becoming a researcher, simply because it's, it's so abstract. You, you don't really know that this job exists, so you really have to somehow experience it, observe it, do it, and then you realize, oh, that's, that's cool. 
 
 

So I guess most people end up in science or in, in academia, who would've never thought so. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. By doing it or by knowing someone 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: does it or whatever. Yeah. Uh, anyway, so, um, staying in this biographical track, but also getting to the topic now. So you started your PhD and what I find interesting, it seems like you've pretty much done the same topic since, since day one of research. Right. Um, so [00:24:00] I'm curious like how, um, yeah, how did you end up doing your PhD and why that topic with that supervisor in that 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah. Um, so actually I wrote my master's thesis with my later PhD supervisor, and he introduced me to, um, cooperative behavior and back then actually to economic games that I then also, that I'm still applying in, in my research. And he also introduced me to the concept of personality. So in my masters, I already did something on borderline personality features and cooperative behavior in different kinds of games, um, and also including more basic personality traits. 
 
 

So that was how I, I don't know, started with this topic. And then, um, after my master's thesis, actually my later PhD supervisor hadn't had a position for me, so he said, I'm really sorry, but I can't offer you a PhD position. But at the time, I applied for a grad school and then I actually ended up with a [00:25:00] different supervisor. 
 
 

Back then. I chose a topic that was somehow related to it, but it was a bit more clinical focus. But nonetheless, I loved doing research on pro-social behavior. So I also wanted to do that in my PhD. But then, yeah, it was also, I don't know, um, it didn't go well with the supervisor . So after a few months, I actually got back to my master's supervisor and asked him, you know what? 
 
 

This is really not the type of supervisor I would like to work with. So he was actually my second supervisor at the time. And so I asked him, , do you maybe have a position for me now? And long story short, it worked out well. So I was able to change my supervisor and to go back to Ben, uh, the master's supervisor, who then also became my PhD supervisor. 
 
 

And, um, yeah, since he had this interest in [00:26:00] personality and pro-social behavior and economic games, I basically continued doing some stuff on that. Although I, I actually did my PhD on trust, which is also closely linked to it. And I remember that at the time he was saying, do you really wanna do that? 
 
 

There's so much literature and trust. Do you really want to do this? But I want it because I'm super stubborn, . And, um, and yeah, so that's how it, how it then, uh, further developed. And, uh, I never regretted that I changed back to him as a supervisor. It was actually. , the best decision I made. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. One thing I'm, I'm always curious about when it comes, like in, in general, but also like when doing research is this question of whether you should, I mean, not whether you should specialize in something. Obviously you have to specialize on something pretty much because, uh, it's , [00:27:00] everything is an endless hole you can dig. 
 
 

Like it is just endless, right? So like, you have to basically focus on very few things, um, to, to understand what's going on there. But like, one thing I was curious about is kind of before you start specializing is like, whether. people should explore lots of different things or really focus on one thing. 
 
 

And, um, I think I'm very much on the exploring different things side of the spectrum where I did, uh, pretty much, uh, I mean, due to random coincidences also, like I spent a year between my bachelors and masters doing different things and I probably did like seven different topics or something, right? Like from attention to my, my BA's thesis was on sleep in blind people, uh, to, uh, my master's thesis was on theoretical neurology. 
 
 

Like it's, it's all over the place, right? Uh, and I really value that because I think, and it's kind of also, also did intentionally like to really do all sorts of different things and then, you know, it gives you this like very broad perspective on things. . I feel like sometimes when people are in one [00:28:00] topic only, they have this very narrow view of what research in the world and everything is right. 
 
 

And forget that there's all this other stuff around it. And yeah, so I, I usually advocate people to try out different things. Um, I even had a bachelor's student who, who did his bachelor's thesis with me and then considered doing his master's thesis with, with me. And I was happy to supervise him, but I basically also said like, do something else. 
 
 

Like, don't do like the same topic twice, like try different things. But it seems to me that it worked pretty well for you to, to do, I mean, from the sound of it is like you pretty much did one thing and just ran with it and works well. So I'm just curious like what kind of, your perspective on this is to Yeah, basically do one, start with a topic and then just not stop. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, I mean, I guess you always have to find a good balance. I mean, I totally agree that you shouldn't be too narrow, so you really shouldn't just focus on one single topic, but also, Look left and right, and also do something that is maybe related, but that is still not the [00:29:00] same. So for example, of course, I mean most of my research still is on individual differences in pro-social behavior or also ethical moral behavior. 
 
 

But I also, for example, did a few things on personality measurement, personality judgments. So how do we perceive other people? So of course this is all somehow related, but it's still a little bit, um, unrelated also in a way. So it's not always the same. And that is also something I would advise everyone in academia to not be too focused, to not be too narrow. 
 
 

Because of course, as you said, you really have to broaden your. Perspective, you have to, yeah, also look into other literature, um, to apply different methods and to just try it out. And I guess also by looking into different topics, you also realize what is really something that is interesting to [00:30:00] you. So I would also definitely advise others, and I think actually in the end, a publication list may look more similar than it actually is. 
 
 

You know, so I, I don't have the feeling that I'm really just focusing on one specific thing, but that there are, yeah, actually different topics included as well. Although, as I said, they are somehow related, but still, um, it's not always the same. Then again, I mean, if you have found the topic that you love, you know, that you're really passionate about, then go ahead and, uh, continue doing research on it. 
 
 

And I mean, it's also good because you are really getting an expert in a very specific. Field. And that helps then also to develop research ideas further. And, um, yeah. So yeah, it all has advantages and disadvantages, I guess. Um, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, for example, I'm really noticing some disadvantages of [00:31:00] not really having done my PhD topic before my PhD in that I had to learn everything, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: yeah, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Like I didn't come to my PhD already knowing all this stuff. Um, whereas if I did my master's thesis or whatever on it, I'd at least know like the main things. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah. You're getting more efficient if, uh, you are studying similar things, uh, of course. Uh, but yeah. Have you now found a more narrow focus for yourself or is it still all over 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: No, no. I mean, I guess now I just noticed the exhaustion that comes from doing . Like, I guess in my PhD I did roughly similar topics often, but like also different ones. I didn't have like, uh, a specific question I tried to answer throughout it. Really in the end, like the la I am kind of doing that, but like for large parts of it, I just did a few different random things and, um, it's, it's just like an exhaustion of realizing, oh, now I have to read my read into this entire new literature again, 
 
 

And so, yeah, I am increasingly becoming more focused. But for me, for example, one [00:32:00] big thing is, for example, the question of whether I want to do kind of psychology and neuroscience at the same time. That's, you know, a big one. Because if I wanna do neuro. wanna do it. Well, and it's a lot of stuff to, you know, I feel like to do good neuroscience, you basically have to do good psychology or the stuff I'm interested in at least. 
 
 

So it's just an additional thing you have to do on top. And, uh, it would be easier now to just like pump out papers on the same topic. And I don't know, maybe I, maybe I'll try and do that, but, um, yeah, yeah, no, I mean, I've, I guess I've had to realize that you really have to focus on very, very few things. 
 
 

Um, maybe one 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: yeah, maybe, but I guess it's also because people want to associate you with a certain topic. They, you know, it's, it's, it makes it easier if you apply for positions and they know who you are and what you do and what you're an expert on. So that definitely helps. But as I said, I would also really, um, confirm what you said. 
 
 

You shouldn't be too focused and too narrow, but [00:33:00] also look right and left. Um, and yeah, maybe also sometimes really starts. With a new topic. That's, that's also the beautiful thing about science. If you are fascinated by something else, if you get interested in a different topic, then you can basically just start working on it. 
 
 

That's something I really love about it. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: No, no one's gonna 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: No, exactly. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Uh, okay. So let's, let's talk a little bit about economic games and, and personality. The stuff you've been doing for a while now. You wrote a review article called Economic Games, an Introduction and Guide for research that appeared in collaborative psychology, which I think is a quite nice introduction. 
 
 

I mean, I guess that's the point. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: nice. Yeah. I, I hope it 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah. Yeah. No, recently we had a master student, I think, so it's not in like, I'm not supervising him, but someone that Apple supervised and asked for, like, what's a good introduction to economic games and that kind of [00:34:00] thing, and it's like, whoa, have you heard of this one? 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: thanks, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: try this one. Yeah. I'm just curious, like maybe why first, why did you write through the article and kind of who's it for really? Like what's the. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: who's the target audience? Yeah. Um, I mean, first of all, why, why did we write this actually? Um, it was an idea that, uh, Robert Boom, who is one of the cool authors and I developed, uh, when we were. Talking about research and we actually shared the frustration that economic games are oftentimes not used in an optimal way in psychological research. 
 
 

So we had the feeling that this has to change and that we have to do something about this. And yeah, at that time we decided, hey, we should write a review on economic games. Also get someone on board who's really into economics. So we asked a colleague of, uh, Roberts Maria Art, who's also a cool author, and yeah. 
 
 

And then we really started to think about concepts [00:35:00] that should be included in such a paper to really introduce people to the method of economic games and also the underlying theories and then also what can be done with it. Yeah. That's how the idea developed. And then we wrote this paper and. Actually, it took quite a few years to get this published because also several editors asked us like, who is the target audience? 
 
 

And or in other words, they told us, we don't know that, or we don't think that our readers are your target audience. So it was super difficult to publish this paper. Um, and yeah, as I said, we really got lots of desk rejects, uh, because yeah, the editors just said, well, this is a nice paper, but it doesn't fit our scope or our audience. 
 
 

But yeah, we actually had in mind, or our goal was to somehow reach different audiences with that, as you said, like [00:36:00] for example, students who are interested in applying economic games or in general in understanding how to measure pro-social behavior. This is one group of, uh, people that we wanted to. 
 
 

Provide this for, and also colleagues in the field, whether it be, um, PhD students, postdocs, or maybe even professors at actually any stage of, of the career. We thought that it might be useful to just have a guide where you can find basic concepts, but also maybe a bit more applied stuff. And also what we provide, for example, is standardized instructions. 
 
 

So we thought, well, this is maybe helpful for any researcher who's interested in it. Yeah. So we hope to provide a relatively broad overview. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. I'm curious, like, by the way, so you mentioned in the acknowledgements that [00:37:00] you thanked like a few people for sharing their instructions to do that. So I'm just curious like from how did that work? You just like wrote a bunch of people saying like, Hey, we're writing this article, can we have your instructions? 
 
 

Or did was this all public or Yeah. How did that 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: No, actually, as you described. So we just had a few people in mind and then we contacted them because we knew they were working with games quite regularly. So we asked them, Hey, can you maybe share your instructions? Because when we worked on those standardized instructions, actually it wasn't that common that people published their materials along with the articles. 
 
 

I mean, I think in economics that's more common in the appendix to, for example, also provide instructions, but at the time it wasn't so common in psychology, and that's why we just reached out to different colleagues, ask them whether they would be willing to share their instructions with us, and yeah, and then we had a couple of them and tried to. 
 
 

Work out some, some standardized ones. Of course, we also had our own that we [00:38:00] had, uh, been using in the past. So yeah, that's how we came up with, uh, the instructions. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Okay. Yeah, I mean, so as you mentioned, you. Uh, actually, maybe first, um, what are economic games? 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Why economic games? 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Net water. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: are, sorry. Yeah. What are economic games? Uh, good question. So actually it's, um, a class of paradigms, behavioral paradigms, where multiple people interact with each other in or according to certain rules, and they also receive an outcome based on their behavior. So, for example, I guess it's easiest, uh, or described in the easiest way with an example. 
 
 

So the simplest game is the dictator. In the dictator game, you have two people, the dictator and the recipient, and the dictator gets [00:39:00] a certain payoff, say 10 euro, and they can simply decide how to distribute that money between themselves and the recipient. And they know that the recipient cannot react in any way to the behavior of the dictator. 
 
 

So the dictator can just decide, well, you know what? I will keep the 10 euro and that's it. The recipient will not receive any money. The dictator gets 10. So that's basically a selfish choice in that situation. Um, so yeah, that, that is an economic game. So you basically, Distribute, allocate resources between yourself and another person, or you react to an allocation by someone else. 
 
 

So that really depends on the specific rules of the game, but it is kind of a way, or kind of a type of strategic interaction between individuals that allow you to measure different kinds of social behavior. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: [00:40:00] Uh, one question that just, uh, came up. I mean, this fairly generic question about the dictator game and automating game, and, um, but like with those in particular, I kind of wonder. , like what exactly they measure? Um, I mean this is, you guys had a very generic question, but like the, the reason I'm asking this basically is that I, I, I once, uh, ran a study, uh, we kind of had the opportunity to go to a prison and, uh, test some of the prisoners and they had a psychopathy measure. 
 
 

And, uh, so we, I, well basically ran like a, a suite of different tasks with them, uh, including both of those. And what I found really interesting is that, um, you know, this is one of the first times I actually, like for practicality, I basically sat there with the people and filled it in with 'em because we didn't have much time and it was just quicker to do it that way. 
 
 

And what was really interesting to me is that like, probably half of them asked like, what's my relationship to the other person? You know, like, who is this other guy? Like, I guess I said, per, yeah, who is this other person? Um, you know, like, what's, like, did we work together? Did we both [00:41:00] own the money? All that kind of stuff. 
 
 

Right? And then you say the generic answer like, well, it's just anyone, blah, blah, blah. Right? And you keep it abstract. , but like as I was sitting there just explaining this to them, I did wonder like, what exactly are we measuring of this? Because it feels like we're more measuring what they think. I want them to what they, you know, what the task is, sup, what they think the task is supposed to be, rather than any specific behavior. 
 
 

Because it basically strips the situation of any meaningful aspect, which is the point. But it still feels to me, like as I was sitting there, I, I did go, like, it was kind of this Yeah. I did wonder, like, this is, does this actually give us anything useful? 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, it's a good point because as you said, um, and I should have said that probably before, economic games are a super abstract representation of different social situations. And I mean, that's also the beauty of these games because you can actually get rid of the entire context. And as you said, you maybe are interacting with, uh, someone or usually you [00:42:00] are interacting with, uh, someone you don't know, you don't knowingly meet. 
 
 

And uh, yeah, you don't get any additional information about who the other person is. And so, yeah, I mean, it's a fair question to ask what are we measuring here? But I mean, the thing is what we, for example, do see is. Behavior in these games. So for example, how you do distribute money between yourself and a totally unknown other, a stranger, and how you behave pro socially in everyday life, such as how willing you are to donate for a good cause or something like that. 
 
 

These behaviors do relate it's weak relations, but nonetheless there is, there seems to be some shared variance that we capture with these games and with real life pro-social behaviors that actually have the same underlying situational structure, for example. [00:43:00] So it does seem that we do somehow measure social behaviors, but it also, it always depends on how people interpret the situation, how they perceive the situation. 
 
 

And actually people may. In how they do perceive these situations. So it may be the case that for some people we do measure different things than for others, but there is also studies asking, for example, about how people do perceive these games and what they do think these behaviors reflect. And these studies do support the validity of what we, or the validity of the games and actually mirrors what we think these games are measuring, namely some sort of social or pro-social behavior. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Uh, by the way, do you have some, uh, references for those that you can send me? I mean, I always put like references to stuff we talk about in the description. Um, maybe we'll just, I'll just put it in the [00:44:00] description. You can send it 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, absolutely. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: um, yeah, so if anyone listening, I always put the, the kind of stuff in the description, um, so you don't have to search around for stuff that sounded interesting and you now you can't find it. 
 
 

Um, as I said, it's a fairly generic, like, not even criticism, but just like question about these kind of games. But it seems to me that in stuff like dictator game and that kind stuff where it's often just, you know, a pure one shot and that kind of stuff, it's often the, it, I mean, I guess it's, yeah, any, in any one shot, you have this, if it's anonymous that you don't know who the other person is, there's no interactive history to. 
 
 

Yeah, I guess you answered the . Yeah. I mean, yeah, I guess it's, well, it's like the, the, they do measure something probably, but it's always the question like, do they measure something for only some people? Like, you know, is the, is the relationship weak because it measures a little bit for everyone, or is it like a lot for some people, nothing for most people or that kind of stuff? 
 
 

Um, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, that's, I mean, that's always the question, and it's always also difficult to really ask. [00:45:00] How people perceive it, because that also requires that they can actually describe how they perceive it. I mean, so it's, it's always tricky and I mean, I know that many people actually criticize these games for being so, um, artificial in a way. 
 
 

Um, but I mean, what should maybe also be sad is that especially earlier research on the topic there, they used, uh, like, or they had really two people sit at a table and really distributing money between themselves. So at least it wasn't the case that they were just reading an instruction on a computer and somehow imagining that there might be a different person who maybe gets the money that I leave on the table. 
 
 

But it was really, um, a very naturalistic setting. And this is at least also, um, Or some, some findings, some studies still try to implement these more naturalistic [00:46:00] settings. Yeah. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: So in the, in the article you also mentioned these kind of two different, well, you measure game, you, you mentioned game theory and interdependence theory, which are, I should record it, two different ways of understanding how people might behave in that situation. Uh, as I, I mean, as I mentioned to you before we started recording, like the, it seems to me that interdependence theory is not particularly well known, at least in the kind of, especially if you do some neuroscience in that country, like from those circles, game theory is super well known and it's famous for many different reasons, whereas interdependence theory is a lot less well known. 
 
 

Um, I'm just curious, could you kind of, I mean, I guess we don't need to define game theory too much, um, but maybe define it a little bit to provide some context for what kind of interdependence theory maybe does differently or adds to it or, um, yeah, how we can just think about those two different thing 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, sure. Um, I mean, interdependence theory is probably much more well known in social psychology than, um, [00:47:00] in any other field. So it has its origins in social psychology and is also basically applied there, I would say. Uh, whereas as you said, game theory is much more commonly applied and really well known across fields. 
 
 

How I do see the difference is, Actually interdependence theory adds something to game theory in the sense that it also implements some psychological characteristics or some psychological processes on the part of the actors, because as you said, in game theory, it's just two entities, two players that somehow interact with each other in a strategic interaction situation. 
 
 

Um, and it's very formalized and actually based on certain assumptions, for example, that people are rational in the sense of they want to increase their personal benefits and so on and so forth. And in interdependence theory, [00:48:00] what it for example, does is that it adds a layer where it is specified that people may have different motives that they, um, want to achieve. 
 
 

Some people, for example, they do want to maximize their own profit. But other people who are dispositionally more pro-social, they actually want to maximize other people's profits. And these different motives actually influence how people perceive the games. So usually, for example, um, one of the very common games is the prisoner's dilemma. 
 
 

And prisoner's dilemmas are usually presented or represented by matrices. So we basically tell people if you do cooperate and the other person defects, then you get outcome X. And if both of you cooperate, then both of you get outcome Z. [00:49:00] And this. Presented in a matrix and what we think actually based on game theory is that the values that we put in the matrix is also the utility, like the perceived value for a participant. 
 
 

Meaning that if I defect unilaterally and the other person cooperates, I get the most out of it. So I should definitely prefer this option because I personally benefit the most. That is the assumption in game theory, but in interdependence theory, given that there are certain motives on the part of the actor, and this motive may be that you actually want to maximize the other person's profit, this may change the utilities because then of in, in that case, the situation where you cooperate and the other defect, so the other person gets the most, would be the most attractive for you because simply you have different motives. 
 
 

So it adds somehow psychological meaning. To, [00:50:00] uh, game theory and interdependence theory also makes it, or has the assumption that people may actually not play the game that you think they are playing because you may just have different preferences, different orders of values. That was super abstract. I'm sorry, because it's a bit different, uh, difficult to describe these matrices and so on and so forth. 
 
 

But I think the, the key is people have different motives and depending on these motives, they may just perceive different response options, different behaviors in different ways. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. I mean, one thing I wonder about with this is whether, I mean, maybe this is specific to the example you gave, but I do wonder like whether this buildup. I mean, yeah, I guess I'll just have to accept that. I'll probably say something really stupid that will anger everyone on all sides here, uh, game theorists and [00:51:00] social psychos or whatever. 
 
 

But it seems to, I wonder whether, whether, at least the way you described the interdependence theory to some extent, or what interdependence theory adds to game theory rests on a misunderstanding of game theory. Because it seems to me that, you know, game theory, like in game theory, you don't say that the outcomes are the utilities. 
 
 

Right. Game theory deals with utilities, and whereas in psychology, we make the mistake of saying like, oh, the outcomes are the utilities. But that game theory never says that. Right. And it seems to me, for example, like one thing I thought about a little bit to my PhD, um, I mean, I've never like formally written anything up about this, but like, for example, the different motives of like how altruistic you are and that kind of stuff is trivially easy to integrate into game theory and you almost don't, right? 
 
 

You just like have different parameters for your own payoff, for the other person's payoff that add up to utilities. So to some extent, I did. . I do wonder, like what? Like if you have a nuanced understanding of game theory, what interdependence theory then adds to that? 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Fair point. Um, [00:52:00] but I would, I, I, I agree and disagree because what is usually done when game theory is applied is that you basically equate utilities with outcomes. So we usually pay participants, and we think that these monetary outcomes that we use translate one-to-one to utilities. So this is somehow the. 
 
 

or an assumption that is often implicitly integrated in studies that apply game theory by using economic games, for example. But you are, of course you are, right, that there is actually, there is no direct assumption that translates outcomes to utilities in game theory because usually it is just based on utilities and this is maybe the different, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: it's very explicitly based 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: yeah, yeah, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: not outcomes. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. But this is maybe also one of the differences because in interdependence theory, you [00:53:00] have a translation between outcomes and utilities. So you add this layer and you try to understand how outcomes are translated to utilities, which is something that game theory does not do, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Okay. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: or would you disagree? 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah, I mean, so this is the problem because I never really took a proper game theory course, honestly, but it always seemed to me that. , maybe this just is like my understanding, misunderstanding game theory. It always seemed to me that game theory never, like, basically like as if interdependence theory fixes the problems that psychology introduces when trying to understand, like it fixes its own problems basically. 
 
 

Like psychologists are like fixing their own misunderstanding of something. Uh, because it, I don't know. The, when, when I read something through, it always seems to me like they basically say like, look, we are only dingling with utilities and we don't care where they come from, or all that kind of stuff. 
 
 

But you can like add it into it and, or, or rather [00:54:00] that, yeah, you have utilities and these are separate from outcomes and how they relate to each other as a separate question and maybe that that's where interdependence theory comes in. I guess like I never, like, one thing I'm always slightly aversive to is this kind of critiquing of game theory when it seems to me that most of the stuff they're very aware of, like they're very explicitly aware of what they're doing and. 
 
 

Psychologists misunderstand them more than anything else, but it seems to, so basically is, is is interdependence theory then, can it be seen as like one, yeah, I guess you said it like one additional layer that you can add into game theory. Is it more that than anything else 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: That, that is my understanding of it. Um, so it basically adds to the problem, if you wanna call it a problem of how our outcomes translated to utilities. So yeah, it, it adds a step that is not implemented in, in game theory, something like that. And I mean, I think it does make [00:55:00] sense because we do want to understand, for example, also, why do people differ? 
 
 

In their behavior. So we really have to somehow understand what are the motives that are driving their behavior or their perceptions, and how do they actually come up with the utilities. If we simply think about these situations in terms of utilities, I think we miss out on something that is really important to understand and this is why. 
 
 

Yeah, I think, yeah, interdependence theory adds something, but you are right in a way that game theory, um, is often misunderstood in, in this particular regard because yeah, it, it just doesn't deal with the outcomes, but really just the. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Well, it's also this one, I mean, the problem is like, I guess that I just don't know that much about it to like, make proper statements about this. I, I mean, I should just invite a game through this probably. [00:56:00] Um, but , um, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: not a game theorist. I mean, that's, that's also super obvious, so, yeah. Um, but yeah. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: but for example, the, the idea that, um, one thing I found kind of interesting is also that you kind of mentioned it and I saw it. I think yesterday, I randomly saw it on Twitter or something where someone posted like a screenshot of your economics, like slide where it said like, people are self-interested, right? 
 
 

And uh, this like, oh, there's like, as you know, like this was just said, it was like unquestioned and all that kind of stuff. And what I found kind of interesting is that the way you framed interdependence theory was basically through the lens of people being, um, selfish in a way. Because, I mean, first you said like people are selfish, um, which came through says, but then you said, well, because I I'm altruistic, I care about the other person. 
 
 

So you are still optimizing utility, right? If you, if you choose a thing that gives you the most utility. So in a way, like 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, yeah, that's 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I guess there's a like fine balance with just terms and that kind of stuff, but it seems to me that, um, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: [00:57:00] Yeah. Probably it also, it shows the difference between, I mean, how game theory is, for example, applied and what is actually in the theoretical considerations, so, but yeah. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I know that lots of psychologists do that, and it's easy to see why, in a way, as, as long as if you don't differentiate between utility and payoffs, then game theory seems really dumb . But I think as, as soon as you're aware of that, they make that distinction, it's very much the case of, yeah, even something like I choose, I want you to have More Than Me is in a way still optimizing utility because I, because that gives me more joy or whatever you 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: No, that's true. But I mean also I would say also in economics, um, I mean you often have this assumption that people are selfish, rational in a way. I mean, you don't necessarily need it and it's not directly implemented in game theory, but it's often somehow applied. So I wouldn't say it's only psychologists who claim that game [00:58:00] theory says that people are rational utility maximizers or, I mean, there it is, it they are rational utility maximizers, which, but yeah. 
 
 

Anyways, um, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Yeah. It's just, it's just one of those things that I found. confusing as someone who's, you know, who does both of those things and sees, you know, you see very conflicting statements and then you read something you're like, from game three. Like, this doesn't sound like what the psychologists say they do, but, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: yeah. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah. 
 
 

Um, anyway. Yeah, I should, I mean, I, I mean, I know that I wanted to invite like a game through us for a while, but somebody just never did. Um, I guess it's always easy to talk about topics, you know, more about than to do an episode on something. Well, I mean, I, I don't mind saying something dumb. Uh, and in a way, I guess the role of the interview is to often say the things that the audience would think. 
 
 

Um, but maybe that's what, what's kept me from , from asking all the dumb psychology questions to a game theorist. But I should probably [00:59:00] do it sometime soon. Uh, anyway. So maybe one thing that is more. More home to what we both studied. Although, funnily enough, I didn't know about this until I read an article for one of my last interviews is, uh, affordances or Are Affordances. 
 
 

Um, so funnily enough, I never really heard about it. And then I, I, I was interviewing, um, Adam Mato, he, um, wrote this, uh, great TCK article called, I can't remember what it's called, but it's about, uh, his, he basically like uses, um, he, he talks about affordances in conversations that people have, and he uses this metaphor for conversational doorknob. 
 
 

And he basically says, you know, sometimes people feel like they're being a good conversationalist because they ask questions, but you can easily ask a question that's like a complete dead end and gives the other person nothing to, and this is the metaphor to grasp onto to, it's, it doesn't give you anything to, to do anything with. 
 
 

Right. And that's kind of really, I find that [01:00:00] article super interesting and also really helped me like about thinking about the podcast because. You can't just ask questions, you have to give the other person something to, to work with. So you, I mean, the reason I bring up affordances is because you, uh, really use that quite a lot to understand economic games and social situations. 
 
 

So I'm just curious, could you maybe explain kind of what this very abstract concept of an affordance is and how it helps us understand economic 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, absolutely. And I would even go further and say it doesn't only help us understand economic games, but behavior in general or situations. Um, so yeah, affordances actually describe certain features of situations that allow you to express certain person factors, whether it be personality traits or motives and so on and so forth. 
 
 

So to give you an example, if you are at a party, , then there is lots of room for you to express [01:01:00] your own level of extroversion. So how sociable you are, how talkative, how much you actually like to dance and to be really, yeah, expressive, uh, in a way. But when you are sitting at your desk and you work just alone, then this does not provide an affordance for the expression of your extroversion because you are basically alone. 
 
 

You can't speak to anyone. You really just have to work very thoroughly, for example, on a boring task. So in that particular situation, you are a level of conscientiousness would be afforded by the situation or the situation actually affords the expression of your conscientiousness level. And in general, different situations. 
 
 

They differ with regard to. what they offer you to do. Right. And these are basically, that's, that's the basic premise of [01:02:00] the affordance concept, that you have certain characteristics of situations that allow you to express certain aspects of, uh, your personality. And this also applies. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: just very briefly, uh, why does it, why is it called affordance? I mean, I've never read like an article specifically about affordance, but the, the term to me seems so weird and suggests something different than it is. I dunno. I'm just curious. Do you know why it's 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: it's, it's based on Gibson, um, on an article, like quite an old, uh, article, but I've no idea why, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Okay. Cause I just find it a weird term. Well, I think like, it, it's, the problem is, I can't tell you what a better term would be, but, um, it, it seems to me like one of the reasons why it seems to abstract and why it's maybe not more colloquial is because it's, I, I feel like it's a weird term 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: it is. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: you can't really, it, it doesn't tell you what it 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: No, that that is true. And also, I mean, um, in, in German, I mean I'm, I'm a native German speaker. There is actually no [01:03:00] real translation. And it's always, it's super difficult to, yeah. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Actually, what do you say? Because it was funny, like the, literally on Monday, uh, someone in the lab mentioned, uh, an article rather, they were talking about different review that heavily cited one of your articles and affordances and we were talking in German about it. And we also could, we didn't know what to, what, what term to use in German. 
 
 

What, what do you usually use? 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: it actually, there is a term that is called , which is 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah, but 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: I know, I know, I know. It's, it's, but it's as abstract as affordance. Um, but yeah, I usually just try to avoid using the German expression because I also haven't found a good word for it. But I think, yeah, to make it more concrete, it's really features of the situation that, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah. Situational features or. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: That, that allow you somehow to express your person characteristics or something like this. But yeah, it's a weird term. I totally agree. But yeah, you also asked about affordances in games, [01:04:00] and I would say since games are models of situations, you can also define or describe the affordances that are available in different games. 
 
 

And this is exactly what we try to do to also then derive hypotheses about which person factors should influence behavior. Because depending on what the situation allows me to do, I should be able to express different features of, um, my personality or related aspects. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Like, for example, the. I mean, this is not an example from economic games, but you mentioned earlier that, you know, sitting on, on your, in your own, sitting in your own, sitting on your own in a room, um, studying or something, you know, would, I dunno what the precise word is, would give you an affordance for conscientiousness or whatever, the way of talking about it. 
 
 

But not for [01:05:00] extroversion, for example. So measuring extroversion should be irrelevant in that kind of environment if you want to figure out how well someone does. Is that kind of what you mean? 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: exactly. So extraversion, whether you are high or low in extraversion should not influence how you behave in that situation. Whereas whether you are high or low in consciousness may definitely influence how, I dunno, diligently you study. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Okay. And so can you give some examples from economic games? Like what's, I don't know, maybe we talked about dictator game earlier as the simplest example. What, what kind of affordance does that allow you? 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: So the dictator game, for example, is, um, a situation that allows you to exploit someone else. So it actually provides a possibility for exploitation. You can simply. Decide to give nothing to the other person and yeah, to basically exploit that person. Sometimes also in a dictator game, you can actually take money from someone, so you really exploit the other person. 
 
 

So that is a [01:06:00] primary affordance that is present in that situation. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Sorry, just briefly, I realized, um, I skipped basically a step. You have four different affordances that you 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, exactly. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Um, yeah. So they are possibility for exploitation, possibility for reciprocity, temporal conflict, and dependence on uncertainty. So the, the kind of, the four ones you identified. 
 
 

So I guess, yeah, I, I skipped the step between affordances and the example. Um, okay. So, so dictator game is more about the, the first one, the possibility for 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Exactly. But for example, if, um, you have a situation such as in, uh, the ultimatum game where the responder, which is player two now has a say because the responder can actually react to what. The other person does. So it's not the dictator anymore because the person doesn't have full power. But it's actually the proposal, uh, now called in that game. 
 
 

And now the responder can actually react to whether the proposer [01:07:00] did a fair share or implemented a fair share or an unfair share. And so in that situation, you basically have a possibility for reciprocity because you are reacting to someone else's behavior. So it's not about whether you will exploit someone, but the situation really provides you with an opportunity to react either in a positive or negative way, so to positively or negatively reciprocate the other person's behavior. Yeah. So that that would be an example for that. You can also think about situations where your own outcome is dependent on someone else's behavior. So in a trust game, You as a truster can basically send an amount to the trustee and the trustee can then send some amount back. So what you basically do is you entrust something to the other whom you are dependent on, but you don't know what the other person will [01:08:00] do. 
 
 

So this provides you with an opportunity to express, um, your trust. And it's actually, we call this affordance dependence under uncertainty, as I said, simply because you depend on the other, while the other's behavior is uncertain, you don't know what the other will do. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Is there? Um, just because one is reciprocity and one is, uh, uncertainty. Depends on uncertainty. Is there a sit, what is a situation where you have un where there's reciprocity but you dunno what the other person's gonna do? Or is that like when, so one person has to go first and the other person's second, then you know what the other person 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah. For example, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Okay. 
 
 

Because it seems like, like one Yeah, sometimes I wasn't entirely sure like what the difference exactly between the 4, 4, 4 affordances was. Yeah. But, uh, one thing I'm curious about is like, I guess this is a general thing about affordance in a way. Like it, so it seems very sensible, but I'm not entirely sure what to do with [01:09:00] it in terms of, I'm, it's not something where you're like, ah, now I can think of this experiment. 
 
 

So I'm just curious, can you provide a bit more context about like, now that we have this framework, what, what can we kind of do with it? 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: So what I think is the key advantage is that we can now really derive hypotheses about which person factors should influence behavior in a certain situation. Because, for example, you can think of different personality traits and some personality traits capture or should become more relevant in situations where you can exploit someone other personality. 
 
 

Are more relevant in situations where you can react to someone that is reciprocate. And so depending on which affordances are present in a certain situation, you can basically derive hypotheses about which personality traits should now influence behavior. So it provides us with a theoretical basis for how the person and its [01:10:00] trade factors, motives, and so on and so forth should be expressed in different situations. Does that answer, I 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: sense. Yeah, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: convince you that it might be an added value 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: No, no, it's just, uh, it's, it was just funny because I guess like when you, you know, as I said, like when you talked, I couldn't think of an experiment, but then I realized as you were saying, like it's because I don't really think much about personality, it's just not something I study. So that's maybe why it doesn't, um, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: focus of my research, I'm of course very interested in understanding it and also providing a theoretical basis for it, which, yeah, we wanted to somehow deal with this. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Yeah. So I mean, the, the other article I want to talk about is your article called Person Item Prosocial Behavior. Um, because I guess to some extent it's, it doesn't exactly provide the other side of the coin to this, but it's, it's very related to this whole thing that we've been talking about in the sense that I guess that you try and you talk more about this theoretical framework and [01:11:00] try and actually answer the question like, you know, under which situation is which personality trait is important. 
 
 

Uh, maybe we can start broadly, because also I know. Nothing about personality, um, and individual differences and that kind of stuff. Can I just ask what a personality trait is and then we take it from there? 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: no, absolutely. I 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: seems like a very broad 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: no, but it's a very good question and I mean, I, yeah, talked a lot about personality traits already without defining them myself. So I mean, a personality trait is in general, a certain tendency. of how people typically think, feel, and act. So it actually relates to all these three aspects, namely our um, thoughts, our feelings and behavior. 
 
 

And yet our, as I said, the, the tendency to typically express, um, or show these different um, aspects. And as I also said, so for example, [01:12:00] extroversion is a, uh, very basic personality trait that describes how sociable you are, how talkative, how cheerful. So it also relates to positive affect for example, where we are getting to the feelings, um, of this. 
 
 

It's also how optimistic you are, that is how positive be beliefs or the extent to which you have positive beliefs about the world in general. Um, where we get to the thoughts, um, aspect. So yeah, that is basically. what a personality trait is about. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I mean, is it mainly a, a label for a statistical description or like a, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: like in some sense it's obvious to what a personality trait is, but in some sense I also feel like I don't quite get from a scientific perspective, or if you then try and translate it into neuroscience, which is, you know, something I think about frequently and that's probably my podcast is more about actually right now than psychology. 
 
 

I'm [01:13:00] not quite sure what to do with a personality trait from, from that perspective. And it's, in a way, it seems to me it's more like to say like, in this kind of situation, this person tends to behave that way. And then you give a label for it. Is that it like a situation specific statistical prediction or probability or whatever? 
 
 

Yeah. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Mm-hmm. , I mean, in general, personality traits are usually conceptualized as latent constructs. So something that we can't really observe, but we give it a label, as you say. And I think that is more like an underlying disposition that drives how we behave and how we act and, uh, how we behave, how we think, and feel. 
 
 

But as you said, it's also sometimes it feels like it's just a mere re description of the behaviors that people enact or that they show. But I would say, so you asked about whether it's situation specific and I would say a personality trait is really something that is not dependent on the [01:14:00] context. And this, for example, shows if say you, um, you observe a certain behavior in a certain situation and then you could of course add a label to this. 
 
 

But what you're actually interested in is whether the person would act similarly in a situation that has the same context or are actually in a situation, um, that provides somewhat of a different context, but that is related to it. So what you usually wanna do with personality traits, for example, is also to actually predict. 
 
 

How people behave in situations where you haven't observed them. So you can actually somehow from their behavior or, or feelings in one situation, you try to somehow generalize or to say something about their behavior in a situation where you haven't observed them. And I think that is one of the advantages and also one of the implications of conceptualizing it as something that is [01:15:00] latent and that is not really context specific, but something that plays out across contexts. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah, actually. Yeah. So a good correction, the whole point is that to not be situation specific. Yeah. situation independent. Yeah. Um, one. Question I have is just as I'm kind of, you know, I have the paper in front of me and there's this figure of four for anyone following along, but it doesn't really matter which one it is. 
 
 

Basically, this is like a long list of all sorts of personality traits and how they're related to prosocial behavior. I mean, if it's situation independent, why do we need, like just the ones you are looking at, which is like 30 different traits or whatever, or I dunno, whether it's different traits or different ways of measuring the same trait. 
 
 

I'm not entirely sure what the relationship is between all of them, but like what? Why are there so many, if, if it's supposed to be a generic thing that exists, independent of any situation, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Honestly, I have no idea. . [01:16:00] No. The thing is, as you say, I mean, there are so many different traits that have been defined by different people, and sometimes you really wonder. Why it now needs yet another trait. So this is really something that is also, I think, a problem in personality psychology, that you somehow really have a diversity, a multitude of different traits and actually some sort of construct inflation. 
 
 

I, I would, uh, call it. But then again, I mean, it really depends on how specific, so there are different types of traits, more generic, more general traits, broader traits that actually capture multiple different characteristics, and then narrower more specific traits or facet level traits. And these can somehow be distinguished. 
 
 

And the idea is that you have these broader traits in terms of a hierarchical structure, and you have more specific traits that are somehow categorized, uh, within those broader traits. [01:17:00] And it really, it just is a question of the level that you are looking at. So, How broad do you wanna describe personality or at what level of the hierarchy are you looking at? 
 
 

And I mean, there are models of personality, basic personality traits such as the Big five that is probably commonly known. Uh, there is an alternative to the big five that has been proposed, uh, like 20 more years ago, uh, 20 years ago, the Hexaco personality Model. And there the idea is really that you have just five or six, depending on which model you use, broad personality traits that can actually capture the entire space of conceivable traits in a few relatively unrelated trait factors. 
 
 

So that is the basic premise of these basic personality models. But [01:18:00] for some instances, This may just not be enough for people because they really want to zoom in on a certain behavioral tendency. And for these situations it may be worthwhile to actually look at the more narrow personality traits that are captured within these broader traits. 
 
 

And I think that is also why so many different traits have been considered and have been defined, because sometimes maybe the very broad traits such as extroversion or consci conscientiousness, which um, I referred to before, they may just not suffice. They may just not be specific enough to explain a certain behavior very well, which is why you may want to look at the more facet level traits such as sociability, which is one of the facets of extroversion or cheerfulness. 
 
 

And then there are also, of course, different constellations of characteristics [01:19:00] that might core occur. And so you might want to describe this pattern of core occurring characteristics, and you may just assign a different label to this characteristic. And that's then also how new trades are somehow invented. 
 
 

But it doesn't mean that they are all really very different, but they are just defined in a bit more nuanced ways that, um, yeah. Uh, intended to describe very specific aspects of people's personalities. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: So like one example might be, let's, if we take extroversion for example, I guess the, the, the general meaning of the word extroversion is different from the psychological from the big five extroversion, because extroversion usually just means how sociable 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, true. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: That's usually how people use it in everyday language and this kind of how optimistic or whatever that kind of stuff is usually not part of it that. 
 
 

Of course how optimistic you are, whatever . [01:20:00] Um, but so is the idea then that Yeah, if you're really interested in someone's social's behavior, then it's, it's you more useful to use only the socially like super relevant ones from extroversion. But if you are interested in something a bit broader, then including the other, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, exactly. It's really, it's, the question is on what level you want to study personality and, uh, how fine grained does it need to be to really, um, be of interest for you. Yeah. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: what's the difference between the Big five and the hexaco? So I know the big five is the, it's one of the few times I actually use one of those acronyms to remember what it is. The, the ocean one. Openness, conscientiousness, ex agreeableness and your, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Excellent. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: um, but what is Hexaco? Does it add a six one or does actually all six ones different. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: it, it, I mean, simply speaking, it adds a six one, uh, which is honesty, humility, the age, uh, of the hexaco. And by the way, honesty, humility is really one of the most [01:21:00] consistent predictors of pro-social behavior. This is also something we found in our meta analysis. Um, but 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Oh, HEXACO is an acronym 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: it's an, it's an acronym. 
 
 

It's, uh, honesty, humility, emotionality is E, which is quite similar to neuroticism, but not exactly the same. So there are a few changes also, um, in that factor. Then extraversion is the ax in hexaco, which is basically the same in the big five and the hexaco. So here we have a factor that is, yeah, basically, um, or essentially the same. 
 
 

Then A stands for agreeableness, but actually agreeableness in the Hexaco model is different from agreeableness in the Big Five. So this is a bit confusing. and yeah, I don't know, probably a different label would've been better to help differentiate between the two. But anyways, then you have C for conscientiousness, which is again, essentially the same as in the Big five. 
 
 

And you have O for openness, which [01:22:00] is also, again, essentially the same as in the Big Five. So basically you have three factors that are sort of the same between the two models. And in the EXCO you have three factors that are different from the Big Five or not included at all, which is the sixth factor. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Okay. No, that's cool. Like I, when you mentioned Hexaco six, I was like, okay, that's, you know, six in Greek. Uh, so like, I was like, okay, it makes sense, but I always wondered like, what the coast, like, what does the coast stand for? But okay, now it makes sense. It's, it's a pretty good acronym. Yeah. Okay. Um, even if it's slightly cheated with the X in 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, that's true. But, but 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Um, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: I think it's okay. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, uh, I wanted to talk, I wanna ask a little bit about then the relationship between personality traits and social behavior. But before that, just briefly, a really random question just came up, like, what's the difference between a personality trait and something like a psychiatric disorder in DSM five? 
 
 

[01:23:00] Um, I mean, obviously one is a psychiatric disorder. Yes. . But, um, . It seems to me that some, to some extent they're trying to do kind of similar things, just that personality traits don't have this, this aspect of, and it's bad. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, that's true. Um, so probably, you mean like, uh, personality disorders or, uh, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I mean, in general, I mean, isn't like a, an if you have anxiety disorder than it means you are more anxious in the situations. And I mean, you literally have a, uh, one of the personality traits is anxiety that you look at, um, in, in, in this big table. So I'm just curious, like, in a way, like if you're trying to describe how someone behaves generally, then they, it seems to me like they're kind of both trying to do some different things. 
 
 

Just that is one, just the, the extreme of one of those things to the point where it becomes, uh, unhelpful for the person themselves or other 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, so absolutely. I mean, um, different psychiatry [01:24:00] disorders are related to different patterns of personality traits. So as you say, for example, anxiety disorders, um, usually go along with a high level of anxiety. And this is also something that is visible in your trait level, such as a high level of neuroticism, which basically captures anxiety, for example. 
 
 

Um, so yeah, you can basically for several psychiatric disorders and also personality disorders, you can actually find typical personality patterns that are related to these, um, disorders. And I mean, The thing is that, um, for example, if you look at, uh, personality disorders, I mean, in DSM five, they are no longer or there is an alternative model of how personality disorders should be described, namely actually in terms of maladaptive levels of normal personality traits. 
 
 

So as you say, it's indeed it's somehow extreme levels of usual [01:25:00] personality traits that become maladaptive and aversive in a way that are bad for, for the person or has negative consequences for people and also, um, for, for others. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. So I mean now briefly about the personality traits and prosocial behavior, um, about, you know, the whole point of that article, , we, we've discussed like the general, lots of general aspects about it, but to the actual, like what you're trying to do. Yeah, I mean, in a way it's, it's a few stupid asking, like, which are the most predictive ones because I'm, you could just look at the table , it's, you know, it's a pretty easy to understand table or figure I guess. 
 
 

Um, no, it's not a table. Uh, so yeah, I guess, um, I won't necessarily ask you to describe which ones are most or least predictive because that's just, if people are interested in that, just look at figure four. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: but I can also say again that honesty, humility is one of the winners. , so, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Yeah, I was, I mean, one thing I was curious about in general is just [01:26:00] like whether there was anything there that really surprised you. Something that shouldn't really be about it. Let's say like even, let's say honestly humility, maybe, I dunno whether that's a good example, but something that is not really social, um, but then suddenly comes up in the social task where you thought like, oh, I didn't know this measured anything relevant to social behavior or even prosocial. 
 
 

Yep. Yep. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: I guess, I mean, what I was surprised about and. . On a theoretical level, it does make sense that it relates strongly, but I wouldn't have expected it relates so strongly to pro-social behavior is guilt proneness. So that's basically your tendency to experience guilt if you, I don't know, break social norms or behave. 
 
 

Um, yeah, in a socially undesirable way. And I was really surprised to see that Guilt Pros was among those trades that really produced the highest correlations with pro-social behavior. If you would've asked me beforehand, I wouldn't have expected that. So this was [01:27:00] actually a surprise. Other than that, actually the. 
 
 

Pattern of correlations was very much in line with our hypotheses, so there weren't really big surprises. Of course, when it comes to the, to the specific effect sizes, then sometimes you expected certain effects to be stronger than they turned out to be or the other way around. But I think overall it made quite a lot of sense. 
 
 

And so there wasn't really something that stood out extremely. maybe what rather surprised me in a way was, was not a specific finding for a specific personality trade, but what we, for example, also looked at is whether a game was incentivized, meaning that people really received money depending on their own behavior and the interaction partner's behavior, or whether it was simply hypothetical [01:28:00] in the sense that people are just asked to imagine they were in the situation and then provide a hypothetical choice. 
 
 

Sometimes it's argued that you, to really assess pro-social behavior, you really have to incentivize the behavior because then you also don't have so much influences of social desirability, which may actually inflate correlations with personality traits because these are also self reports. So basically social desirability may influence both. 
 
 

Self-reported personality traits and also hypothetical decisions, and that may artificially inflate correlations. And this is something that we didn't see in our meta analysis. So actually for most of the traits, and I mean really the vast majority of the traits, we didn't find any differences between whether games were incentivized or just hypothetical. 
 
 

So the correlations were just similar in [01:29:00] size, and that was something I was really surprised about, um, because I would've expected that sometimes if you just have hypothetical games than, as I said, the correlations should be really higher, but that didn't happen. So it seems that also with the hypothetical games, we do capture some individual differences, and these individual differences are predicted or accounted for by relevant personality traits. 
 
 

So that was basically the most surprising to me. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Yeah, I agree. I mean, especially, you know, we, we discussed a little bit difference between, I mean, let's say roughly economics and psychology, or, uh, from what I understand in economics, this is really like one of the, um, you know, you can't use deception and you have to incentivize your task, and those are like two more borderline laws that you, you know, if you want to, if you want your study to be accepted by people. 
 
 

I mean, in a way it's superior. It's, it's a very, um, welcome [01:30:00] finding because it makes the, like, I, you know, I mean, it's, it's, it's often not measurable problem. And we've, I've done some studies and then, you know, you have to figure out a way of like, okay, how can we, like, make the numbers into the thing, add up to decent numbers that people can win afterwards, and that kind of stuff. 
 
 

It's, it's more of a nuisance. But for example, we did a study where we, it's also at losses where you can lose lots of money. And so, you know, in the lab iterated things, we found a way of, you know, um, um, Endowing people with money, but then subtracting some of that from it. Obviously we endowed them with more than they should have gotten and then subtracted so that they still, uh, you know, left with some, with some money afterwards because otherwise we'd get in trouble with ethics probably. 
 
 

But um, you know, we we're in a work there, but like basically as soon as you do an online study and if it's about very small amounts of money, then like that you lose a scent or so it's like just not really worth it. So we just went hypothetical and said like, imagine you might lose far from a juris, that kind of thing. 
 
 

Right. And it's kind of handy to [01:31:00] see that that maybe doesn't make as much a different as people might've thought. I mean there are lot, obviously lots of like experimental studies on this question also that explicitly do compare this and do find often some differences. Um, but yeah, it was kind of , it was good to 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, absolutely. And I mean it's, it's of course, as you say, there are experimental studies directly comparing hypothetical behavior versus incentivized behavior. And when you look at the means, like for example, how many people do cooperate, then you do see differences. But I was also really like quite relieved that actually in relation to personality traits, it doesn't seem that there are systematic differences between whether you incentivize or not. 
 
 

So there may be a shift in means in the average levels, but yeah, this doesn't seem to affect the link to personality, which is great. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I mean, if I remember correctly from those studies, it's usually people are a bit more idealistic when it's hypothetical than when their money's actually on the line. But it's not a, [01:32:00] it's not like a huge difference. Um, yeah. But yeah, I agree. Like, I mean, I was also just looking as you were speaking at the table of the different traits and whether they relate well to what extent they've relayed positive to negatively, and it's, you know, , most of the ones are there. 
 
 

Like, it's not surprising that sadism has the, the strongest negative effect because that's basically what it is like by definition. Um, and it's like when you go through them, it's kind of, yeah. Like it makes sense that these would be more or less also in that order there. I mean, maybe surprising that something like altruism isn't higher. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, that's true. But probably it's also a measurement issue. I mean, there are 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah. That's, yeah. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: honestly, really bad scales sometimes to measure certain constructs. So it's always a conflation of the properties. Of the scales with the construct. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Yeah. That's of course, yeah. An additional problem. Yeah. Or when you have even one of my favorites, badly translated skills, um, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: yeah. I mean, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I've seen some example of [01:33:00] some of those. Yeah. Even I've seen that and I don't really look at personality research much. Yeah. So, so like, that's not how you say it. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: no, absolutely not. And I mean, this is really also something that you really learn when you do a meta-analysis and then you realize how bad certain scales are, and not speaking of the translations, but just also how bad certain items are designed. Yeah, there, there is quite some variation in the in the quality of these scales. 
 
 

And that of course also that does affect the effect size estimates in the meta. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. I mean, I guess, yeah, I guess you shouldn't take too much from individual items necessarily on this thing because you might have one item that just suffers from a bad scale that's often used or whatever, and 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: That's true. But if you have like sometimes as it is used a very brief scale that just has four items to measure, construct, then of course one item that is really bad or [01:34:00] two can weigh heavily on the overall score. So it's also a matter of how many items are integrated or included 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Yeah. . Yeah. If you give someone 300 questions, that should be a bit more precise. Yeah. I mean, to to, to kind of talk about the last topic and or the last topic that I've planned and changed topics a little bit, is that you, and was it half a year ago or a year ago or something like that, A year ago you started your own lab, um, in fire book. 
 
 

Right. And yeah, I guess I just wanted to talk a little bit about that and what that's been like. I mean, I'm always, I mean, I'm at the end of my PhD right? And not sure I wanna have a lab. It looks like a lot of admin, uh, which is not exactly my favorite. I mean, I, I I really hate Edmond, uh, and like bureaucracy. 
 
 

It's so like that This is generally something that makes. consider they're not doing it. But, uh, so I guess [01:35:00] I wanted to get maybe a little bit of insight of what it's been like for you. So maybe, uh, yeah, maybe, maybe let's start broad again. How did you, how did you end up in Five Oak Exactly. And why did you, what, what does your kind of lab do now and 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: yes. I mean, how did I end up here? I mean, I'm, uh, here at the Max Plank Institute for the Study of Crime Security and Law, actually a Max Plank Institute that I didn't know before I applied to that position. Um, so I didn't know it exists, and I also didn't know that they would hire a psychologist. A colleague of mine knew the director here at the institute, and so he actually made me aware that there is a job opening, uh, for a research group leader position in the Department of Criminology. 
 
 

And, uh, yeah, that's how I learned about this position. And then I decided to apply also after having spoken with some colleagues here and realizing that I [01:36:00] do actually fit in the department topic-wise. And yeah. And then I applied and it worked out. So I received the, um, well I got the position and, uh, was allowed to start my own lab, which is now called Personality, identity and Crime. 
 
 

So we are, yeah, but we are basically doing like everything that is related to individual differences in. Ethical, including pro-social behavior. But then again, also on the other hand, the unethical and criminal part of the behavior. So I'm basically doing, as you said before, what I've done for like all the time, although I also start to look into the criminology literature more, which is really interesting. 
 
 

Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I, I actually just wrote my first criminology paper, um, and submitted it this week. So I started to look into that as well. And [01:37:00] yeah. And so that's how I came here. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: But was the criminal, the criminological aspect planned that you wanted? Like did you want to do something in a direction or was it just like one possible application of personality and that kind of stuff and there was a position you went, oh, okay, I'll do, I guess I'll do that now. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, it was more of the letter. I mean, I was, I, I also already did some work on dishonest behavior. We also, for example, developed a game paradigm that measures bribing. And so yeah, I mean it's, it's actually, it's so closely linked to the pro-social side of things is also to look at the antisocial, um, and more negative side of things. 
 
 

So I was already doing research on the topic, but that it now also extended to criminal behavior. Not really planned, but, um, yeah, as I said, this position came up and I then thought, well, you know what, why not apply? And I mean, I'm actually not [01:38:00] forced to now study crime. It's really just because I'm interested in it. 
 
 

So I'm, I'm basically independent when it comes to the research topics, but since I'm now located within a criminology department and really got fascinated by the topic, I also thought, well, this is an opportunity to now maybe expand on that too and look into a related but somewhat new topic. And yeah, to just broaden the scope. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah, I understand the, the fascination with criminology. I mean, it's just from like, I mean like I, you know, did not plan to, to run this study in, in a prison. It was literally just because someone we knew in Johannes Fuz because we knew him and he basically had access to the prison and it was, yeah, it was, I mean, it was definitely a prison and there were more very bad boys in there than I thought there were when I went in , maybe quite good. 
 
 

I didn't know that half of them were murderers. Uh, , [01:39:00] uh, I thought it was like one or two, but then it turned out, like, when I actually, afterwards saw like the list of how many people, it was like, oh, that was a, that was a lot of them. I didn't realize that. But the, the thing that's, you know, I mean this is of course, it's almost, I think this is basically so well known. 
 
 

It's almost a cliche, but it's like that they are really like normal people. At least they're the ones that I met. I mean, it really was just like, oh, there's, I mean, some of them you could tell they, they were a bit on edge. You felt like, yeah, I wouldn't, I want to anger that person too much. But most of them like seems like a normal guy. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah, that's true. And still what we just, uh, or what I just started to look into is actually to see whether they do differ in terms of personality. And it seems that there are certain personality traits that are more commonly found among people who become criminals. So there are individual differences here as well, which is, yeah, as I said, why I also got interested in the topic. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Yeah. [01:40:00] I mean, the, the funniest thing for me was just that we had this, the, the thing we were interested in is we had this, uh, psychopathy checklist. They, they did that before, and I didn't know, uh, what any score of the people were. Right. I just tested them and then afterwards I was given, you know, we had like the code thing, and then I was given their, uh, their values. 
 
 

And what really surprised me is that, you know, I, I did then know afterwards, like who had what, uh, psychopathy kind of measure. I had no idea like what any of them did, but at least I knew like this number, right? And assuming that this number means something I knew roughly, like who was like radio psychopathic and who wasn't. 
 
 

And what really surprised me is like, you know, when you are meeting the people, you, even if you don't want to, you try and guess like who's who's what, right? And I mean, I remember like, there was this one guy in particular, I was like, man, this guy is just too, in German, the word I had was aka. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yes. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Like, he just seemed really like, just too, not calm. 
 
 

I'm not sure see what the English word would be, but like, he had it figured out. Like he, it was like a little bit, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: [01:41:00] or 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah, not even the, it was just a kind of like, yeah, I dunno. But he just seemed like too relaxed almost in the situation. I was like, everyone else seems a bit more on edge. He's too relaxed. Uh, he must have done something really bad. 
 
 

And uh, then later on I got a score and he had a super low psychopathy score. I think he was just a relaxed guy. ? Yeah. I think it was just me, overinterpreting or whatever. He was just, it's, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: I can totally 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: there was something about him. I felt like, yeah, that guy, there's something with him. And at least on his psychopathy score, he was like one of the lowest 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Or maybe he 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: And then, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Maybe, uh, he wanted to 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah, but it's also based on his crime, right? Like the, the psychopathy measure is also based on the crime they're committed. So, but the, the, the other, and this is the, I mean this is the kind of funny one, right? But the scary one is that then I was like, okay, who has the highest one, right? Who has a really high psychopathy score? 
 
 

And. . So I saw this, um, you know, I saw the name and then the score, and my first thought was, which one was that? 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Mm-hmm. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I don't remember him 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: [01:42:00] Mm-hmm. . Yeah. That makes you 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: And like, he had a, he had a very high psycho score, like he must have done something horrible. And, and it took me like a while. I was like, oh, that guy. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Mm-hmm. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: He was like, nice. He was perfectly pleasant, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Woo. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: and he must have done something horrible. 
 
 

Yeah. So that's, I, I understand the fascination with criminology and that kind of stuff, especially because it often seems, uh, um, at least, I mean, maybe some people, maybe I have bad intuition about people. That's possible. Um, but um, it seems often as quite counterintuitive. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: and it, it definitely sometimes is, and I mean, even though lay people think that we as psychologists can basically look into people's heads, this is definitely not true 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: no, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: So yeah, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah, I definitely can't. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: sometimes. Um, but yeah, I mean you also, um, like going back to your question, you also said like, well, how is it, and I mean, it must be super, like a lot of admin. 
 
 

That [01:43:00] comes 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah, exactly. Sorry, this was the topic, but now about the actual position. Yeah, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: um, and yeah, that is definitely true and I also hate admin , so this is the negative side, side of things. But then again, it's so fun actually. I really enjoy building the lab, putting together a group and actually working with the folks. And so it's, it's really, it's so enjoyable and I, I just love what I do, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah. I'm like the, the, so that's good to hear , congratulations. Um, but it, it always seems to me that, like when I think about like doing science, which I guess is I think most. I think most PIs like doing science, right? That's kind of why you got into it in the first place. Sure. You realize some stuff you don't quite like that much, but like in general, people like doing science and it just seems to me that like being a PI is this weird trade off when you, you [01:44:00] kind of say like, okay, I'm gonna do more admin, which is the thing I hate, and in return I get to do less science almost. 
 
 

It's like, I don't know, it seems like a weird trade off to 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: No, that's true. In a way, it is that way. But then again, I haven't seen a position in academia where. You get tenure and you still just do science without also having an increase. For example, in teaching or in admin. I mean, this is basically how the system works, I guess. So of course you have less time for the things that you really love to do, but then again, it's also, you know, it changes in a way that you, for example, also start to really enjoy supervising people. 
 
 

And you take a lot out of seeing that PhD students develop their skills and really make their own way. So there are just new things that come with these positions. And of course the admin stuff is really [01:45:00] annoying. But then again, as I said, you also becoming a pi. You also, uh, somehow get different things to do that are really enjoyable in addition to just doing your own research. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Like supervising or what are other things that, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: And I mean, it's always a trade off. So as I said, I mean, show me the job where you don't have to, uh, do additional admin, but still get tenure and I don't know, do 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah, I guess I, I guess I shouldn't read biographies of scientists a hundred years ago. Um, because that's, you know, if you, I mean, to be fair, this is also, you know, you read about the people who are good enough that there's a biography written about them. And by definition, if you're super good, like if you're one of those people who's like one in a generation kind of people, okay, maybe you even now don't have to do asthma mond. 
 
 

There's, you know, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: But then again, I mean, if you have more [01:46:00] responsibility, and this is what you usually get when you. Somehow get up the ladder, um, in the system, then you necessarily have more admin, at least when you are living in Germany. I mean, there is so much bureaucracy in Germany. So this just, it's just, uh, one thing that comes with the job and, um, yeah, I think 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: So you, so you just accept it and go with it versus me moaning 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: yes. . Exactly. And, and I mean, I'm still, you know, in the very fortunate, uh, position that I'm working at a Max Plank Institute where I don't have to teach. So it's really just the admin stuff that is added, but not the teaching. So I really have a lot of time to do research, which I know is like Yeah. A privilege 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah. I mean, it's like a research professorship in that sense, right? Where you, you have the, you can be your own group and that kind of stuff, and. . Yeah, yeah, 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: So I really can't [01:47:00] complain. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: I see. Yeah. We'll see, I don't know. I mean, I'm obviously still, at least, I mean, I dunno, I guess in some places I'm was surprised when people apply for like professorships during their PhD. 
 
 

I guess in America's maybe more common than Europe. Um, to me it's like completely normal and expected that you do at least one post first. Yeah. I mean, I guess for me, the trade off is more like, I like doing research, but I also, if you're, you know, if you're a postdoc, then you have to, to some extent do what your supervisor wants to do. 
 
 

Ideally, you find someone who does exactly what you want to do and that it's perfect. But that's also, I mean, well, I hope, I hope I can get it, but it's also a bit of a utopia. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: fingers crossed for that. And um, yeah, I mean it's true, but also depending on the supervisor, many supervisors actually give you a lot of freedom, so you can still also pursue the type of research that you would like to do. But yeah, of course, if you really want to do what you would like to do, then [01:48:00] yeah, you have to become somehow independent. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. And it seems to me like if you want to build something like your own lab and that kind of stuff, then 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah. Then you have to accept that there is some admin and these sort of things involved. But as I said, there was also so many enjoyable things about this, um, that you just accepted 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, cool. Yeah, it's funny, I was just thinking recent, like if I had a ground as a pi, I feel like I'd probably just like if you have luck on the ERC ones or whatever, where you have like, Four or five positions or something you can pay for, for a few years. I feel like I just hire three secretaries to take care of all the admin and then one or two postdocs with whom I just work all the time. 
 
 

Like that to me, seems like it would be the ideal. Most people don't do that. They tend to hire PhD students and that kind of stuff. 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: But yeah, honestly, I also, uh, um, now hired a secretary because I thought, you know, please, I do wanna get rid of a bit of the admin stuff, so please take care of it. Um, but yeah, 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: [01:49:00] Yeah. Okay, cool. So what's, I mean, I guess you mentioned already a bit of the criminological aspects, um, but kind of what, what, what you wanna, what are you building then in then in the next five years? Like what's, what's the plans for your lab and your 
 
 

Isabel Thielmann: Yeah. So, um, as I said, one thing is definitely to zoom in also, um, on the criminological aspect of behavior and, uh, how personality plays out and how it can be used to explain individual differences in crime. So that is definitely something we want to, uh, investigate. Then we also have a big project that just started on self-knowledge. 
 
 

and moral behavior, including pro-social behavior, which is based on the idea that people have a certain idea of their own morality, their own pro-social tendencies, but usually that is very positively biased. So we all think of ourselves as good people, [01:50:00] as moral people. We are all honest and very helpful with others and so on and so forth. 
 
 

But yeah, it's, it's really maybe a bit over optimistic, our self-perception in that regard. And this has implications for how we behave and also whether we have the feeling that we need to change for the better, that we can improve on our pro-social and moral behaviors. Because if you think of yourself that you are already very good at these things, then there is no need to improve on it. 
 
 

And so what we would actually like to do is to help people reflect on themselves and to understand that they may actually. Be a bit too over optimistic about their own, um, characteristics in that regard to then also motivate them to behave more pro socially and more morally. So to basically yeah, um, behave in a better, more socially desirable way. 
 
 

And, um, this is something I'm [01:51:00] actually also really excited about. So we just started and it's a five year project, so we will definitely be busy for a couple of years, uh, with that and with we, I mean like also several people will be busy with that. Um, so this is one line of research, but yeah, also further studying individual differences in pro-social behavior. 
 
 

There is still lots of things we don't know that we would like to understand. So, um, yeah, as I said, it won't get boring. I'm quite confident and certain about this. 
 
 

Benjamin James Kuper-Smith: Yeah, sounds good.

Isa used to be a pretty good sprinter
Lessons from athletics
How Isa got into psychology and doing science
Breadth vs depth in research topics
Start discussing Isa's review article 'Economics Games: an introduction and guide for research'
What are game theory and interdependence theory?
Affordances and economic games
Personality and economic games
Isa's experiences starting her lab and becoming a PI