Morality in SocLab

Oswaldo Terán,
UT1, France & ULA, Venezuela
Ortony: cognitive theory of emotions
emotions depend on the perceived meaning or
significance of situations, (Ortony citing
Mandler, 1984), and indeed “appraisal” simply
refers to the assignment of value or emotional
meaning
 Central Intensity Variables
● Desirability/undesirability
– position in the goal tree-structure
● Praiseworthiness/blameworthiness
– degree of coherence with standards
● Appealingness/unappealingness
– (pre)disposition to like/dislike
 Global variables
● Sense of reality
– degree of real the event, agent or object underlying
the affective reaction have
● (Psychological) Proximity
– distance in time/memory
● Unexpectedness
● Arousal
– subjective importance of a situation, e.g.,
abs(desirability)
 Local Variables
● Likelihood
● Effort
● Desirability for others
● Liking
● Deservingness
● Strength of cognitive unit (related with
solidarities, and the tree of goals?)
● Expectation deviation
● Familiarity (related with number of exposures)
 SocLab Case
mS: moral sensibility parameter
Aim: consequences for self-aim (at t, and at
(t+1))
Aim = (1-abs(mS)) * instrumSatis + mS * moralSatisf
(Imp)
Stakes, Effects, Solidarities.
Relations and constraints among relations
Parameters
scope, tenacity, reactivity, oblivion, rewards,
mS
 Ortony: Satisfaction
Satisfaction, Variables of intensity:
Intensity of the attendance hope emotion
desirability, likelihood + other operative global
variables
So, also with the structure of goals
Effort in trying to attain the event
Degree to which the event is realised
 SocLab: Satisfaction
Satisfaction, Variables of intensity:
Intensity of the attendance hope emotion
SocLab: stake, parameters and solidarities
Effort in trying to attain the event
SocLab: parameters, relations and constrains
Degree to which the event is realised
SocLab: actual level vs. aspiration level (of
satisfaction)
 Ortony: Pride (Shame)
the agent feels praiseworthy (blameworthy) in
accordance to his approval (disapproval) of self-
action.

Variables of intensity:
a) the degree of judged praiseworthiness
(blameworthiness).
b) the strength of cognitive unit with itself.
c) deviations of the agent´s actions from the
person/role-based expectations.
 Pride in SocLab ?
● Degree praiseworthiness
● Actual vs. aspired influence (e.g., maxInfluence).
● the strength of cognitive unit with the group:
– Stakes? (e.g., stakes to “non-unit” relation)
– Constraints on (or between) relations
● deviations of the agent´s actions from the
person/role-based expectations.
– Effect functions (unit and non-unit relation rel.)
– Constraints on and between relations
 Gratitude/Remorse
Variables of intensity : the three of goals, +
d) degree of desirability (undesirability of the
event)
● SocLab: Degree of the agent's identification
with the org. in terms of an event, e.g.,
● Success
● coupling with its environment
● good internal communication, or learning
 Gratitude/Remorse
● Tree of goals, and to what the individual is used
to, and stakes.
● New relations and constraints among relations
● Applicable in SocLab?
 Summary: Aim = f(satisf, standard)
● Standard
– Degree of praiseworthiness: Delta influence
– Stakes and effect functions
– Relations with the environment
– Internal relations (cohesion, etc.)
– Place of (his goal in the organization) in his tree of
goals and costumes
– Constraints among relations
 A model: CENDITEL
Goal :
to investigate how collaborative behaviour
appears in the PM team, responsible for
designing a planning methodology and its tools,
and on which variables/parameters such
behaviour depends on, in order to suggest
policies for promoting collaboration, and thus a
better product (methodology and tools).
 Hypothesis (CENDITEL model)
The model allows:
To identify factors related with collaboration.
To characterise the variations of collaboration
as a function of the change of those factors.
To select the values of the factors more
favourable to promote collaboration.
To develop some policies aimed at promoting
collaboration, extrapolating from the
significance of the chosen values of the factors
to the real organisation.
 MSP Team

Tech.
Pertinence
Social Tech.
advise Research
descriptions of the issue of
interest, and goals of the
methodology & feedback
meetings/dialogue requirements
Society (group learning)

Tech. tool
spreading Development
Methodology
software
Tech.
Spread
 Model of CENDITEL in SocLab
● In a Context highly politicised, and a
fragmented culture
● Actors:
– Strongly engaged (collaborative)
– Weakly engaged or distanced (other interest: free
riders, relations with the environment:
● Politics
● Academics) (low identification)
 SocLab Scenario Analysis
● Actual situation:
– 3 Engaged, 4 not engaged (including the director)
● What happens if:
– Director were highly engaged/identified?
– All actors were highly engaged/identified?
● The Director (hopefully) could learn from the
simulation
● Future, help to answer: how to change actors
behaviour?
 Prisoner Dilemma
Actors: A1, A2
● a: dependence parameter. Stakes: (a, 10-a)
● mS: (A1.mS, A2.mS):
– (0, 0). Instrum, both collaborate
– (1, ?).
 A1 A2

R1

R2
 A2.mS>0 A2.c=1

A1.c=1
A2.ms<0 A2.c= - 1

a<50

A1.mS=1
A2.c= - 1
a>50 A2.mS>0
If a=60, threshold: - 2/3
A1.c= - 1
A2.mS > (a-100) /a A2.c= - 1

A2.mS<0

A2.mS< (a-100)/a
A2.c=1
MERCY