Feedback on UI

[ljchang]

Just a few quick comments based on demo with @YounZGrace.

• A lot of numbers to keep track of. UI seems a bit cluttered. I get that the idea is to minimize math in the head, but I'm having a hard time knowing where to focus. I think it would be more intuitive to have a box with bigger numbers in the center that corresponds to the slider value, instead of computing amount to me and amount to partner on each anchor. Not intuitive.
• Name seems like it might be hardcoded right now and not using the name submitted by the user.
• For Trustee - It is important to see what the investment is from Player 1. On Second order belief screen, it's not obvious what the investment was. Something like "Grace invested $2.50 out of $5.00", which becomes $10.
• Multiplier should be 4 by default unless we are doing hidden multiplier version.
• It's hard to keep track of total amount of money for player 1 from player 2's perspective.
• Summary screen is hard to follow. Here is what I recommend. Focus on Player 1's investment, "Grace invested $2.50 out of $5.00", which becomes $10." "You returned $5.00". Grace gets $7.50 and you get $5.00". Remove all of the ratings here. Then you can hand down Grace's expectation on the next screen. "Grace expected you to return $5.00". On this screen you will want to make your guilt ratings.
• Remove anger, partner's guilt, closeness, satisfaction for now to simplify to the essence.
• Let's add a counterfactual guilt rating. How this works is you show a summary of the trial and then ask "How much guilt would you feel if you returned $XX amount of Money?" XX will be a number that is lower than the amount actually returned.
• In the actual experiments, we never ask guilt in between trials so as to not bias the participants to focus on guilt (or any emotion).
• When they finish making all of their decisions, we show them a recap of everyone's behavior and then ask them to make their guilt ratings after the fact. Not sure if we want to do this for the demo or not. #8

[ljchang]

will send more later when I have more time to play.

[wasita]

@ljchang
can you clarify what you mean by recap? is it like 'Investor invested XX% of the endowment on average'? or something else?

[wasita]

@ejolly have updated luke's comments into a to do list so we know which tasks/comments need to be completed/addressed

[wasita]

• add ITI jitter

[wasita]

• blow up text etc. more clear for scanner and video shoot

[ljchang]

@ljchang can you clarify what you mean by recap? is it like 'Investor invested XX% of the endowment on average'? or something else?

We talked about this yesterday, but basically the idea is to completely separate the ratings from the decisions. I don't think it is necessary for this demo, but is what we often do in decision-making studies to not make subject hyperfocused on emotions.

[wasita]

@ljchang yeahhh i wrote that comment asking for clarification before we met yesterday but thanks for following up

…

On Fri, Jan 27, 2023, 8:10 AM Luke Chang ***@***.***> wrote: @ljchang <https://github.com/ljchang> can you clarify what you mean by recap? is it like 'Investor invested XX% of the endowment on average'? or something else? We talked about this yesterday, but basically the idea is to completely separate the ratings from the decisions. I don't think it is necessary for this demo, but is what we often do in decision-making studies to not make subject hyperfocused on emotions. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AG5U6WD7YRZYL5QOE4FFNR3WUPCKPANCNFSM6AAAAAAUGS6XWY> . You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[wasita]

• linebreaks where needed in prompts
• round vals to nearest whole int