\documentclass[twocolumn]{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{ifpdf,newtxtext,newtxmath} 
\usepackage{array,graphicx,dcolumn,multirow,hevea,abstract,hanging}
\usepackage[labelfont=sc,textfont=sf]{caption}
\usepackage[hyperfootnotes=false,breaklinks=true]{hyperref} % was dvipdfmx
% \usepackage[hyperfootnotes=false,breaklinks=true,linkbordercolor={1 1 1},citebordercolor={1 1 1}]{hyperref}
% \usepackage{natbib} % must come afer hyperfootnotes, use 2nd version for bibtex
% \setlength{\bibsep}{0pt}
\urlstyle{rm}
\usepackage[hyphenbreaks]{breakurl}
\usepackage{booktabs} % \toprule \midrule \bottomrule \cmidrule(lr){a-b}
% define centered and ragged columns:
\newcolumntype{L}[1]{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash }p{#1}} % can use m{}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{>{\centering\arraybackslash }p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{>{\raggedleft\arraybackslash }p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{d}[1]{D{.}{.}{#1}} % d{3.2} for 3 places on l, 2 on r
\newcommand{\mc}{\multicolumn}
\topmargin=-.3in \oddsidemargin=-.1in \evensidemargin=-.1in \textheight=9in \textwidth=6.8in
\setlength\tabcolsep{1mm}
\setlength\columnsep{5mm}
\setlength\abovecaptionskip{1ex}
\setlength\belowcaptionskip{.5ex}
\setlength\belowbottomsep{.3ex}
\setlength\lightrulewidth{.04em}
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
\renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
\renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
\renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{.9}
% \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.00} \large\normalsize
\widowpenalty=1000
\clubpenalty=1000
\setlength{\parskip}{0ex}
\let\tempone\itemize
\let\temptwo\enditemize
\let\tempthree\enumerate
\let\tempfour\endenumerate
\renewenvironment{itemize}{\tempone\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}}{\temptwo}
\renewenvironment{enumerate}{\tempthree\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}}{\tempfour}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\setcounter{page}{648} % start with first page

\title{Strategic thinking and behavior during a pandemic}

\author{
Nir Halevy\thanks{Graduate School of Business,
Stanford University, 655 Knight Way, Stanford, CA 94035.
Email: nhalevy@stanford.edu. ORCID: 0000-0001-5491-6979.}
}

\date{} % leave empty
\begin{document} % goes here

% change next 3 lines each issue
\newcommand{\jref}{http://journal.sjdm.org/vol15.5.html}
\newcommand{\jhead}{Judgment and Decision Making, Vol.~15, No.~5}
\newcommand{\jdate}{September 2020}
\pagestyle{myheadings} \markright{\protect\small \href{\jref}{\jhead}, \jdate \hfill Strategic thinking and behavior in a pandemic
 \qquad}
\begin{htmlonly}
\href{\jref}{\jhead}, \jdate, pp.\ 648-659
\end{htmlonly}
%\begin{latexonly}
\twocolumn[
\vspace{-.5in}
{\small \href{\jref}{\jhead}, \jdate, pp.\ 648--659}
%\end{latexonly}

\maketitle

%\begin{latexonly}
\vspace{-3mm}
\begin{onecolabstract}
%\end{latexonly}
This paper introduces a novel theoretical model and measure of strategic
thinking in social decision making. The model distinguishes four strategic
orientations: \textit{egocentric }(thinking about how one’s actions shape
one’s outcomes), \textit{impact }(thinking about how one’s actions shapes
others’ outcomes), \textit{dependency} (thinking about how others’ actions
shape one’s outcomes), and \textit{altercentric} (thinking about how
others’ actions shape their outcomes). Applying this model to explain
social behavior in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, an exploratory
study finds that the more people think about how their actions shape
others’ outcomes, the more likely they are to: (a) comply with social
distancing restrictions designed to curb the spread of the virus, and (b)
donate money they received in the study to charitable organizations. These
findings advance understanding of the multifaceted nature of strategic
thinking and highlight the usefulness of the Strategic Thinking Scale for
explaining social behavior.  

\smallskip
\noindent
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing, prosocial behavior,
interdependence, decision-making
%\begin{latexonly}
\end{onecolabstract}\bigskip
]
%\end{latexonly}

{\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{}

\footnotetext{

This paper benefitted from helpful comments by
Jonathan Baron, Eileen Chou, Siyu Yu, and two anonymous reviewers.

Copyright: \copyright\ 2020.
The authors license this article under the terms of the
\href{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/}{Creative Commons
  Attribution 3.0 License.}
}}

\saythanks

\setlength{\baselineskip}{12pt plus.2pt}

\section{Introduction}

The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic has rattled the lives of many millions of
people in 2020. Its impact has been felt in every aspect of individuals’
lives. In addition to the human lives lost and the harm caused to
individuals’ physical health and mental well-being, the lockdowns,
closures, and quarantines introduced in many countries have resulted in a
marked economic downturn and a sharp spike in unemployment in many
locations. The pandemic has also constrained individual freedoms,
increased governments’ monitoring of citizens’ behavior, and dramatically
changed how students learn, how employees work, and how people interact
with each other.

For social scientists and policymakers, the COVID-19 pandemic has raised
important theoretical and practical questions related to social behavior.
One of the primary questions that has surfaced was how to align individual
behavior with the guidelines set by public health officials as a means to
slow the rate of transmission and enhance governments’ ability to respond
effectively to the pandemic (Gollwitzer et al., 2020; Jordan, Yoelli \&
Rand, 2020; Van Bavel et al., 2020). The individual behaviors suggested by
public health experts, and in many cases encouraged or mandated by
authorities, require individuals to fundamentally alter how they interact
with others. They also require individuals to think about how their own
actions, and the actions of others (e.g., the extent to which their
friends, neighbors, and coworkers follow social distancing guidelines),
influence their own and others’ health outcomes. Hence, from a theoretical
standpoint, strategic thinking — defined as reasoning about how
interdependent parties can influence their own and others’ outcomes — should
explain to some degree individual behavior in the context of the COVID-19
pandemic. The current research investigated how complementary aspects of
strategic thinking relate to socially responsible behavior in context of
the COVID-19 pandemic. 

I propose that strategic thinking constitutes an important psychological
factor that can help explain people’s behavior during the COVID-19
pandemic. The next section elaborates on the concept of strategic
thinking. I then report findings from an exploratory study that used
different components of strategic thinking to predict compliance with
social distancing guidelines and donation of money to medical
organizations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The current research focused
on these specific behaviors as they were seen as particularly important at
the time the study took place (March 26, 2020). Complying with social
distancing restrictions was essential for curtailing the spread of the
virus, and many health organizations solicited donations from the public,
which were seen as essential in fighting COVID-19 (e.g.,
\url{https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/donate}).

\subsection{Strategic Thinking and Behavior}

Strategic thinking is a ubiquitous and multifaceted mental process whereby
individuals think through how their own and others’ actions influence
their own and others’ outcomes (Halevy, 2016). Situations that call for
strategic thinking are characterized by multiple (i.e., two or more)
actors, courses of action, and potential outcomes. Hence, decision makers
may attend to different actors (e.g., ego versus alters in one’s social
network: Halevy, Halali \& Zlatev, 2019; Nakashima, Halali \& Halevy,
2017), different courses of action (e.g., cooperation vs.\ competition:
Halevy \& Chou, 2014), and different levels of possible outcomes (e.g.,
best-case versus worst-case outcomes: Halevy, Cohen, Chou, Katz \&
Panter, 2014) to varying degrees. Building on the idea that decision
makers often attend to certain aspects of social situations more than to
others (Adams, Sagiv \& Licht, 2011; Mitchell, Agle, Wood, 1997; Occasio,
1997; Orquin \& Mueller Loose, 2013), I propose that uncovering which
aspects are most salient to decision makers can aid in explaining and
predicting their behavior. 

Table 1 provides a schematic account of how different foci of attention in
social decision making situations give rise to different strategic
orientations. Specifically, I propose that decision makers can focus their
attention on themselves versus on others when thinking about possible
courses of action as well as when thinking about potential outcomes. I
propose further that crossing these foci of attention results in four
strategic orientations. The \textit{egocentric} strategic orientation
reflects a focus on how one’s actions shape one’s outcomes. The
\textit{impact }strategic orientation reflects a focus on how one’s
actions shape others’ outcomes. The \textit{dependency} strategic
orientation reflects a focus on how others’ actions shape one’s outcomes.
Finally, the \textit{altercentric} strategic orientation reflects a focus
on how others’ actions shape their outcomes.  

\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.5}

%Table 1:   
\begin{table}[t]
\caption{A schematic account of strategic orientations based on the foci of
attention in social decision making.}
\begin{tabular}{ll|c|c|}
 & \mc{1}{c}{} & \mc{2}{c}{\bf Outcomes}\\
 & \mc{1}{c}{} & \mc{1}{c}{Self} & \mc{1}{c}{Other}\\\cline{3-4}
\multirow{2}{.7in}{\bf {\ ~\ } Actions} & Self & Egocentric & Impact \\\cline{3-4}
 & Other & Dependency & Altercentric \\\cline{3-4}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
			
\renewcommand\arraystretch{1.2}
			   
Unpacking strategic thinking to distinguish these four strategic
orientations is consistent with interdependence theory’s practice of
unpacking payoff matrices to their principal components to explain how
individuals influence their own and others’ behavior and outcomes in
social interactions and relationships (Kelley et al., 2003; Kelley \&
Thibaut, 1978; Rusbult \& Van Lange, 2003). Importantly, strategic
orientations are \textbf{not} mutually exclusive “types” of decision
makers. Rather, they are modes of thinking that coexist side-by-side to
varying degrees within each decision maker depending on how they allocate
their attention over the different aspects of a given decision making
situation. The allocation of attention to different aspects of the
situation, and the ensuing strategic orientations, can be shaped by both
person and situation variables in a given setting. 

Recent research on strategic thinking from this perspective (Halevy,
Alzahawi \& Dannals, 2020) has shown that these four strategic
orientations are distinct from other epistemic processes and preferences,
including need for cognition (Cacioppo \& Petty, 1982), need for cognitive
closure (Webster \& Kruglanski, 1994), and tendencies for cognitive
reflection (Frederick, 2005). It has also shown that these four strategic
orientations are distinct from social motives (e.g., power and benevolence
values: Schwartz, 1992) and interpersonal tendencies to engage with others
cognitively and emotionally (i.e., perspective-taking and empathetic
concern: Davis, 1983). Finally, the studies conducted by Halevy et al.\
(2020) show that different strategic orientations differentially predict
behavior in well-defined, incentivized economic games, such as Stag-Hunt
(Skyrms, 2004), Dictator, and Ultimatum Bargaining (Sivanathan, Pillutla,
\& Murnighan, 2008).

\subsection{The Current Research}

Previous field studies of strategic thinking and behavior have: (a)
operationalized depth of strategic thinking in terms of the number of
steps of iterated reasoning decision makers engage in; and (b) studied
strategic thinking primarily in the context of antagonistic economic
interactions between individuals and organizations (e.g., Brown, Camerer,
\& Lovallo, 2012; Goldfarb \& Xiao, 2011; Ostling et al., 2011). The
goal of the exploratory study reported here was to utilize a novel,
multifaceted conceptualization and measure of strategic thinking to
examine how different components of strategic thinking (i.e., different
strategic orientations) predict socially responsible behavior by
individuals during a pandemic. 

The data for this exploratory study was collected on March 26, 2020. Based
on data published by the World Health Organization, there were 478,126
confirmed cases and 24,247 deaths associated with the pandemic worldwide
on that date. Four months later, on July 26, 2020, there were 15,785,641
confirmed cases and \href{https://covid19.who.int/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI\_aWkjZjg6gIVzed3Ch29Ag-LEAAYASAAEgJnZ\_D\_BwE}{640,016 deaths} associated with the pandemic worldwide.
Two themes emerged consistently in news coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic
during March 2020. The first theme concerned the critical need to increase
people’s compliance with social distancing guidelines as a means to curb
the spread of the virus. Governments and local authorities in many
locations have issued guidelines designed to minimize or slow down the
spread of the virus, and issues related to the public’s compliance with
some social distancing measures surfaced in the media. The second theme
concerned the widespread shortage in essential medical supplies, such as
facial masks and ventilators. In some cases, media reports indicated that
this scarcity fueled fierce bidding wars for medical supplies. 

Consistent with these themes, the current research focused on compliance
with social distancing guidelines and donations of money to charitable
organizations as two forms of socially responsible behavior during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Applying the theoretical framework of the four strategic
orientations suggested above to individual thinking and behavior in the
context of the COVID-19 pandemic suggests that decision makers facing a
strategic decision problem (such as whether or how much to comply with
social distancing guidelines, as well as whether to donate money to
charitable organizations in need of funding during the pandemic) may focus
their attention to varying degrees on: (a) how my actions will shape my
outcomes (the egocentric strategic orientation); (b) how my actions will
shape others’ outcomes (the impact strategic orientation); (c) how others’
actions will shape my outcomes (the dependency strategic orientation); and
(d) how others’ actions will shape their outcomes (the altercentric
strategic orientation). The current research assessed how individuals’
propensity to think through each of these strategic orientations related to
their behavior during the pandemic.

\subsection[Method]{Method}
The preregistration for this exploratory study is available here:
\url{https://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=ks89xu}. The study materials and
data are available here:
\url{https://osf.io/4tx3b/?view_only=686576ff99b54d00b04852fed1e828ed}.

\subsection{Participants \& Procedure}
Consistent with the preregistration, I aimed to recruit 1,000 participants
from various countries via Prolific Academic. Sensitivity analysis using
GPower3.1 showed that this sample size has 95\% power to detect a
correlation of {\textbar}.052{\textbar} (Cronbach’s $\alpha $=.05). A total
of 1,025 sessions were recorded in Qualtrics. In line with the
preregistered exclusion criterion, I excluded 20 observations from
participants who attempted to complete the study multiple times (based on
repeated Prolific participant IDs), resulting in a final sample size of 995
unique participants who completed the entire survey (and several additional
participants who completed portions of it; see Table 2 for the sample size
for each measure).

Participants (58.6\% male, age: M=28.3, SD=9.8, range: 18 to
80), represented residents of many different countries, including the
United Kingdom (26\%), Poland (16.3\%), Portugal (11.8\%), the United
States (11.6\%), Italy (4.8\%), Canada (4.6\%), Spain
(3.5\%), Hungary (1.8\%), France (1.7\%), Germany (1.6\%), and more (e.g.,
Australia, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Israel, Mexico, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, and Switzerland; see notes \#2 and \#5
for more information and analyses that consider participants’ countries of
residence). All responses were collected on March 26, 2020.

\subsection{Measures }

All the measures included in the study are reported below in
the order they appeared in the survey. All the measures below used 7-pt
scales ranging from 1=\textit{Strongly disagree} to 7=\textit{Strongly
agree}, unless specified otherwise. 

\textbf{Experiences of Threat.} After providing consent,
participants responded to seven items that assessed their experiences of
threat in the context of the pandemic: “The spread of Corona virus
(COVID-19) poses a serious threat to… (a) people's lives;
(b) people's physical and mental health; (c)
people's employment and economic well-being; (d) social
relations between people; (e) the rule of democracy; (f) individual rights
and freedoms; and (g) poses an overall unprecedented threat to human
societies”. The order in which these items were presented was randomly
determined for each participant ($\alpha $=.74). 

\textbf{Feelings of Hope.} Participants subsequently responded to seven
items that assessed their feelings of hope in the context of the pandemic:
“When I think about the spread of the Corona virus (COVID-19) I feel hope
about: (a) people's lives; (b) people's
physical and mental health; (c) people's employment and
economic well-being; (d) social relations between people; (e) the rule of
democracy; (f) individual rights and freedoms; and (g) the overall threat
to human societies”. The order in which items were presented was randomly
determined for each participant ($\alpha $=.91).
Experiences of threat and feelings of hope served as control variables in
the analyses.  

\paragraph[Strategic Thinking and Behavior]{\bfseries Strategic Thinking
and Behavior.}
Participants subsequently responded to two survey blocks with measures that
captured strategic thinking and behavior. One block focused on compliance
with social distancing guidelines and the other block focused on donation
of money to medical organizations. The order in which these two blocks
were presented was randomly determined for each participant.  

\paragraph{Strategic Thinking
and Compliance with Social Distancing Guidelines.} Participants responded
to 12 items that assessed the four strategic orientations (as four
complementary aspects of strategic thinking) in the context of the
pandemic. The instructions for the Strategic Thinking Scale applied to
this context read as follows: “In many locations around the globe,
authorities have introduced new regulations and restrictions limiting
face-to-face contact between people as a means to combat the spread of
COVID-19 (the corona virus). People vary in how much they personally
follow these new regulations and restrictions. As you are contemplating
whether or how much to follow these new regulations and restrictions, so
are many other people. Please indicate how much you think about each of
the following considerations when deciding whether or not (or how much) to
follow these new regulations and restrictions. When making this
decision...”

These instructions were followed by the 12-item Strategic Thinking Scale
(henceforth STS) taken from Halevy et al.\ (2020). The first three items
captured the egocentric strategic orientation (i.e., thinking about how my
actions shape my outcomes: “I think about how my decision will influence
me”; “I think about how the choice I make will shape my outcome”; and “I
think about the consequences of my action for me.”  ($\alpha $=.84). The
next three items captured the dependency strategic orientation (i.e.,
thinking about how others’ actions shape my outcomes): “I think about how
others' decisions will influence me”; “I think about how the choices others
make will shape my outcome”; and “I think about the consequences of others'
actions for me” ($\alpha $=.82). The following three items captured the
impact strategic orientation (i.e., thinking about how my actions shape
others’ outcomes): “I think about how my decision will influence others”;
“I think about how the choice I make will influence other people”; and “I
think about the consequences of my action for other people” ($\alpha $ =
.86). Finally, the last three items in this measure captured the
altercentric strategic orientation (i.e., thinking about how others’
actions shape their outcomes): “I think about how others' decisions will
influence them”; “I think about how the choices others make will shape
their outcomes”; and “I think about the consequences of others' actions for
them” ($\alpha $=.89). The order in which these 12 items were presented was
randomly determined for each participant. An exploratory factor analysis
indicated that these 12 items loaded on the four factors as conceptualized
in Table 1.\footnote{ A principal component analysis on the 12 items of the
  strategic thinking scale (in the context of social distancing
  restrictions), specifying four factors and using promax rotation,
  indicated that the four strategic orientations are distinct yet
  interrelated. All items loaded on their intended factors. Item loadings
  ranged from .814 to .907 for the egocentric orientation; from .783 to
  .923 for the dependency orientation; from .861 to .903 for the impact
  orientation; and from .882 to .919 for the altercentric
  orientation. Items did not load highly on factors other than their
  intended factor (all cross-loadings
  {\textless}{\textbar}.15{\textbar}). The four factors jointly explained
  77.76\% of the variance. Correlations between the extracted components
  ranged from .29 to .56.\par }

After reporting their strategic thinking concerning the new social
distancing guidelines, each participant responded to a single item that
served as the first dependent measure: “How likely are you to follow the
new regulations and restrictions to their full extent in the next seven
days?” Participants indicated their response using a 7-pt scale ranging
from 1=\textit{Extremely unlikely} to 7=\textit{Extremely likely}.
Participants subsequently responded to two additional items that captured
their past behavior and expectations regarding others’ behavior (i.e.,
perceptions of the descriptive norm), which served as control variables.
These items read as follows: “In the past seven days, to what extent have
you followed the new regulations and restrictions to their full extent?”
(using a 5-pt scale ranging from 1=\textit{Not at all} to
5=\textit{Completely}, 6=\textit{Not Applicable})\footnote{ Different
communities and countries introduced different restrictive policies to
curb the transmission of the COVID-19 virus. Given the variability in such
public policies, the questions pertaining to: (a) intentions to comply
with social distancing regulations and restrictions in the next seven
days; (b) compliance with social distancing regulations and restrictions
in the past seven days; and (c) perceived behavioral norms in their
community, were intentionally phrased using broad terms that captured that
variability. The broad applicability and relevance of these items is
evident from the fact that only 1.5\% of the participants (n=15) responded
to the question about their compliance with social distancing restrictions
in the past seven days by choosing the option: “not applicable — there are
no new, corona-related regulations and restrictions in my community”.};
“In your opinion, what percentage of the people in your community are
likely to follow the new regulations and restrictions to their full extent
in the next seven days? (Please enter a number between 0 and 100 only)”. 

\textbf{Strategic Thinking and Donating Money to Charitable
Organizations.} The second dependent measure in the current study
was assessed as follows. Each participant then learned that the study gave
them \$0.50 (in addition to the \$1 they received for completing the
study) that they could either keep to themselves or donate to charitable
organizations. Before making this binary choice, participants completed
the same set of strategic thinking items noted above (i.e., the 12-item
STS), this time to assess the four strategic orientations (as
complementary aspects of strategic thinking) in the context of donating
money to charitable organizations during the pandemic. The instructions
for this measure read as follows: 
\begin{quote}
The shortage of medical supplies in many locations around the globe has
led charities to seek donations from the public to help fight the Corona
virus (COVID-19). People vary in how much they personally give to medical
charities in general and at this time in particular. On the next page of
the survey, you will have a choice to make. You, and each participant in
this study, will receive \$0.50 in addition to their fixed payment of \$1
for completing this study. You can choose below to either keep the \$0.50
to yourself or have us donate it to the Red Cross/Crescent (or an
equivalent health organization) in your country to help fight the Corona
virus (COVID-19). If more than 50\% of people will choose to donate their
\$0.50, we will donate an additional \$100 to help fight coronavirus.
Before making this choice, please indicate how much you think about each
of the following considerations when deciding whether or not to donate the
\$0.50. When making this decision right now,...”.
\end{quote}

%Table 2:
\begin{table*}[t]{\small
\caption{ Descriptive statistics and correlations among the research
variables. (r=.06 is p<.05; r=.08 is p<.01; r=.11 is p<.001).}
\begin{tabular}{@{}l@{}c@{\,}cc*{14}{d{1.2}}@{}}\toprule
& \itshape N & \itshape M & \itshape SD & \mc{1}{c}{1} & \mc{1}{c}{2} & \mc{1}{c}{3} & \mc{1}{c}{4} & \mc{1}{c}{5} & \mc{1}{c}{6} & \mc{1}{c}{7} &
\mc{1}{c}{8} & \mc{1}{c}{9} & \mc{1}{c}{10} & \mc{1}{c}{11} & \mc{1}{c}{12} & \mc{1}{c}{13} & \mc{1}{c}{14}\\\midrule
1. Egocentric SO: Compliance  & 998 & 5.92 & 1.02 &....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....\\
2. Dependency SO: Compliance & 998 & 5.45 & 1.22 & .58 &....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&.... \\
3. Impact SO: Compliance & 998 & 5.81 & 1.10 & .37 & .49 &....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....\\
4. Altercentric SO: Compliance & 998 & 4.97 & 1.35 & .29 & .46 & .48 &....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&.... \\
5. Egocentric SO: Giving  & 997 & 5.40 & 1.36 & .43 & .29 & .16 & .17 &....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....\\
6. Dependency SO: Giving & 997 & 4.59 & 1.62 & .25 & .39 & .19 & .32 & .55 &....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....\\
7. Impact SO: Giving & 997 & 5.45 & 1.27 & .22 & .34 & .56 & .36 & .24 & .39 &....&....&....&....&....&....&....&....\\
8. Altercentric SO: Giving & 997 & 4.51 & 1.53 & .20 & .29 & .29 & .57 & .32 & .65 & .51 &....&....&....&....&....&....&....\\
9. Intentions to comply & 998 & 6.55 & .85 & .18 & .23 & .39 & .21 & .06 & .05 & .24 & .14 &....&....&....&....&....&....\\
10. Donation (1=yes, 0=no) & 997 & .727 & .45 & .03 & .07 & .22 & .15 & -.07 & -.02 & .25 & .11 & .17.&....&....&....&....&....\\
11. Past compliance & 997 & 4.61 & .66 & .07 & .10 & .26 & .16 & .04 & .04 & .18 & .09 & .58 & .13 &....&....&....&.... \\
12. Expecting others to comply & 997 & 69.88 & 18.01 & -.03 & .01 & .05 & .03 & .04 & .05 & .00 & .00 & .12 & -.06 & .14 &....&....&....\\
13. Expecting others to donate & 997 & 62.82 & 24.14 & .03 & .07 & .11 & .08 & -.10 & -.05 & .11 & -.00 & .09 & .49 & .05 & .12 &....&....\\
14. Experienced Threat & 1,004 & 5.36 & .89 & .22 & .23 & .20 & .24 & .17 & .23 & .21 & .26 & .13 & .03 & .12 & -.01 & .02 &.... \\
15. Feelings of Hope & 1,001 & 4.08 & 1.34 & .03 & .03 & .08 & .16 & .09 & .17 & .09 & .18 & -.02 & -.01 & .04 & .11 & -.00 &-.08\\\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{table*}

The text referring to the possibility of adding \$100 to the donation if a
majority of the participants will choose to donate their money was
capitalized in the instructions to emphasize the interdependence between
different people’s choices. This particular aspect of the instructions
created a step-level public good problem (Bornstein, 1992). That is, the
public good (an additional donation of \$100) would be supplied only to
the extent that a particular threshold is met. In this case, the
contingency (which is conceptually similar to matching mechanisms used by
many institutions; e.g., Gee \& Schreck, 2018; Meier, 2007) was that a
majority of the participants contributed their resources to this end.
$\alpha $ reliabilities for the four strategic thinking
sub-scales in the context of the donation decision were as follows:
egocentric orientation: $\alpha $=.87, dependency orientation: $\alpha
$=.89, impact orientation: $\alpha $=.82, and altercentric orientation:
$\alpha $=.89. An exploratory factor analysis indicated that these 12
items loaded on the four factors as conceptualized in Table 1.\footnote{ A
principal component analysis on the 12 items of the strategic thinking
scale (in the context of donation decisions), specifying four factors and
using promax rotation, indicated that the four strategic orientations are
distinct yet interrelated. All items loaded on their intended factors.
Item loadings ranged from .866 to .881 for the egocentric orientation;
from .797 to .899 for the dependency orientation; from .779 to .892 for
the impact orientation; and from .853 to .908 for the altercentric
orientation. Items did not load highly on factors other than their
intended factor (all cross-loadings {\textless}{\textbar}.31{\textbar}).
The four factors jointly explained 79.68\% of the variance. Correlations
between the extracted components ranged from .23 to .60.}

Participants subsequently reported their demographic characteristics and
exited the online survey.

%Table 3:  
\begin{table*}[t]\centering
\caption{Strategic thinking and demographic characteristics predicting
compliance with social distancing restrictions during the pandemic.}
\begin{tabular}{lcc@{\qquad}cc@{\qquad}cc}\toprule
 & \mc{2}{c}{Model 1} & \mc{2}{c}{Model 2} &\mc{2}{c}{Model 3}\\\cmidrule(lr){2-3}\cmidrule(lr){4-5}\cmidrule(lr){6-7}
Strategic Thinking & \mc{1}{c}{B (SE)} & \mc{1}{c}{$\beta$} &
\mc{1}{c}{B (SE)} & \mc{1}{c}{$\beta $} & \mc{1}{c}{B (SE)} & \mc{1}{c}{$\beta $}\\
Egocentric SO: Compliance  & .024 (.030) & .028 & & & .033 (.026) &.040\\
Dependency SO: Compliance & .019 (.028) & .028 & & & .025 (.023) & .036\\
Impact SO: Compliance & .278 (.028) & .358$^{**}$ & & & .175 (.024) & .226$^{**}$\\
Altercentric SO: Compliance & .011 (.022) & .017 & & & $-$.005 (.019) &$-$.007\\
Past compliance & & & .723 (.034) & .562$^{**}$ & .659 (.033) & .512$^{**}$\\
Expecting others to comply & & & .002 (.001) & .036 & .001 (.001) &.031\\
Gender (1=female, 0=male) & & & .111 (.047) & .065$^{*}$ & .047 (.045) &.027\\
Age & & & .006 (.002) & .074$^{*}$ & .007 (.002) & .086$^{*}$\\
Experienced Threat & & & .037 (.025) & .039 & $-$.013 (.025) & $-$.014\\
Feelings of Hope & & & $-$.024 (.017) & $-$.038 & $-$.04 (.016) &$-$.064$^{*}$\\
Model \textit{F} & 45.23$^{**}$ & & 85.87$^{**}$ & & 66.27$^{**}$ & \\
Adjusted \textit{R}\textit{\textsuperscript{2}} & .151 & & .344 & & .401& \\
\itshape N & 997 & & 973 & & 973 & \\\bottomrule
\mc{7}{p{5in}}{Note. $^{*}$p{\textless}.05, $^{**}$p{\textless}.001. SO=strategic orientation.}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}

\subsection[Results]{Results}
Table 2 presents the sample sizes, means, standard deviations, and simple
correlations among all the measures included in the study. Table 2 shows
positive associations among the four strategic orientations within each
domain (compliance with social distancing guidelines, donation decisions)
as well as across the two domains. These positive associations indicate
that, despite the conceptual and empirical distinctiveness of the four
strategic orientations, they share a common core (a tendency to cogitate
more, rather than less, when faced with a strategic decision
problem). Table 2 shows that intentions to comply with social distancing
guidelines correlated positively with all four strategic orientations
(ranging from \textit{r}=.18 to \textit{r}=.39\footnote{All correlations
  reported in the text are significant at the .001 level unless noted
  otherwise.}). Intentions to comply correlated strongly with past
compliance (\textit{r}=.58), but only weakly with expectations that others
will comply (\textit{r}=.12).  Choosing to donate the money correlated
positively with the impact (\textit{r}=.25) and altercentric
(\textit{r}=.11) strategic orientations, was unrelated to the dependency
strategic orientation, and negatively (though weakly) associated the
egocentric orientation. Choosing to donate the money correlated strongly
with the expectations that many others will donate (\textit{r}=.49), but
only weakly with intentions to comply with social distancing guidelines
(\textit{r}=.17). Finally, Table 2 also shows that experiencing threat in
the context of the COVID-19 pandemic correlated positively with thinking
strategically about both decision problems — the greater the threat
participants experienced, the higher were their scores on the four
sub-scales of the STS (correlations ranged from \textit{r}=.17 to
\textit{r}=.26). Unlike threat experiences, feelings of hope in the context
of the pandemic did not show a consistent pattern of association with the
four strategic orientations.  The associations between the four subscales
of the STS and the other variables of interest as depicted in Table 2 are
largely comparable in magnitude to the effect size benchmarks in social
psychology (Richard, Bond \& Stokes-Zoota, 2003) and applied psychology
(Bosco et al., 2015).

Table 3 presents the results of linear regression analyses predicting
people’s behavioral intentions to comply with new social distancing
guidelines during the pandemic. Model 1 in Table 3 shows that the more
individuals think about how their own actions shape others’ outcomes (i.e.,
the impact strategic orientation), the more likely they are to comply with
the new social distancing guidelines (\textit{$\beta $}=.36,
\textit{p}{\textless}.001). Model 3 in Table 3 shows that this positive
association remains significant (\textit{$\beta $}=.23,
\textit{p}{\textless}.001) after adjusting for individuals’ past compliance
with social distancing guidelines (which is the strongest predictor of
intentions to comply in the future), their gender, age, expecting others to
comply, experiences of threat, and feelings of hope. Table 3 shows further
that women were significantly more likely than men to comply with social
distancing guidelines (Model 2), and that age related positively to
intentions to comply with social distancing guidelines (Models 2 and 3).
Importantly, the four strategic orientations jointly explained 15.1\% of
the variance in behavioral intentions to comply with social distancing
guidelines (Table 3, Model 1). Interestingly, hope showed a significant
(though weak) negative association with intentions to comply with social
distancing guidelines (Table 3, Model 3), suggesting that hope can be
associated with counterproductive behaviors in this context (in contrast
to Halevy, 2017).

Table 4 presents the results of logistic regression analyses predicting
people’s actual donations of the money the study provided them to
charitable organizations during the pandemic. Model 1 in Table 4 shows that
all four strategic orientations explained unique variance in decisions to
donate the money received in the study to charitable organizations. The
four strategic orientations jointly explained 12.3\% of the variance in
actual giving. Importantly, whereas Model 1 shows negative coefficients for
thinking about one’s personal outcomes (i.e., the egocentric and dependency
strategic orientations), it shows positive coefficients for thinking about
others’ outcomes (i.e., the impact and altercentric strategic
orientations). This pattern largely held in Model 3 in Table 4, in which
three of the four components of strategic thinking (the dependency, impact,
and altercentric strategic orientations) retained their explanatory value
after adjusting for donation expectations, gender, age, experiences of
threat, and feelings of hope. Notably, an increase of one unit in thinking
about how one’s own actions shape others’ outcomes (i.e., the impact
strategic orientation) increased giving by 62\% (Model 3, Table 4). This
effect emerged after adjusting for participants’ gender (among other
predictors), which also predicted charitable giving in this study.

%Table 4: 
\begin{table*}[t]\centering
\caption{Strategic thinking and demographic characteristics predicting
donations of money to charitable organizations during the pandemic.}
\begin{tabular}{lcc@{\qquad}cc@{\qquad}cc}\toprule
 & \mc{2}{c}{Model 1} & \mc{2}{c}{Model 2} &\mc{2}{c}{Model 3}\\\cmidrule(lr){2-3}\cmidrule(lr){4-5}\cmidrule(lr){6-7}
Strategic Thinking & \mc{1}{c}{B (SE)} & \mc{1}{c}{Odds
Ratio} & \mc{1}{c}{B (SE)} & \mc{1}{c}{Odds Ratio} &
\mc{1}{c}{B (SE)} & \mc{1}{c}{Odds Ratio}\\
Egocentric SO: Donation  & $-$.172 (.071) & .842$^{*}$ & & & $-$.107 (.083) &.898\\
Dependency SO: Donation & $-$.241 (.073) & .786$^{*}$ & & & $-$.244 (.082) &.784$^{*}$\\
Impact SO: Donation & .520 (.072) & 1.682$^{**}$ & & & .482 (.084) & 1.619$^{**}$\\
Altercentric SO: Donation & .142 (.071) & 1.152$^{*}$ & & & .189 (.083) &1.208$^{*}$\\
Expecting others to give & & & .052 (.004) & 1.053$^{**}$ & .052 (.004) &1.053$^{**}$\\
Gender (1=female, 0=male) & & & .825 (.186) & 2.281$^{**}$ & .716 (.196) &2.046$^{**}$\\
Age & & & $-$.010 (.009) & .990 & $-$.002 (.010) & .998\\
Experienced Threat & & & .044 (.094) & 1.045 & $-$.062 (.105) & .940\\
Feelings of Hope & & & .025 (.063) & 1.025 & $-$.017 (.067) & .983\\
Model $\chi^2$ & 88.51$^{**}$ & & 268.85$^{**}$ & & 327.54$^{**}$ & \\
Nagelkerke $R^2$ & .123 & & .344 & & .408 & \\
\itshape N & 997 & & 989 & & 989 & \\\bottomrule
\mc{7}{p{5in}}{Note. $^{*}$p{\textless}.05, $^{**}$p{\textless}.001. SO=strategic orientation.}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
 

\section[Discussion]{Discussion}
The current paper introduced a multifaceted conceptualization of strategic
thinking that is based on decision makers’ attention allocation in social
decision making situations, and a corresponding measure — the Strategic
Thinking Scale. An exploratory study that utilized these tools illustrated
their usefulness for explaining and predicting individual behavior in the
context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings show that self-reported
strategic thinking in the context of a dynamic and high-stakes collective
event explains considerable portions of the variance in two important
outcome measures — behavioral intentions to comply with social distancing
guidelines and actual donation of money to charitable organizations. The
findings also demonstrate the significance of distinguishing different
components of strategic thinking, conceptualized here as distinct (though
interrelated) strategic orientations that reflect attending to different
foci in social decision making situations. Specifically, thinking about
one’s own outcomes — either about one’s agency and control over one’
personal outcomes (the egocentric strategic orientation) or about one’s
vulnerability to, and dependence on, others’ actions (the dependency
strategic orientation) — was unrelated to compliance with social distancing
guidelines and showed a negative association with donations. In contrast,
thinking about others’ outcomes, and more specifically, about how one’s
actions shape the consequences that others experience (the impact
strategic orientation), positively predicted both behavioral intentions to
comply with social distancing guidelines and actual donations of money
during the pandemic.

\subsection[Theoretical and Methodological Implications]{Theoretical and Methodological Implications}
The main theoretical contribution of the current paper is in offering a
novel conceptualization of strategic thinking that challenges and
complements prevailing conceptualizations. Prevailing models of strategic
thinking conceptualize it as an antagonistic cognitive process whereby
individuals try to thwart their rivals by engaging in more steps of
iterated reasoning than their competition (Brown et al., 2012; Camerer,
2003; Camerer, Ho \& Chong, 2015; Goldfarb \& Xiao, 2011). Thus, common
conceptualizations of strategic thinking utilize terms such as “adversary”
and “competitor” in their definitions. For example, Dixit and Nalebuff
(1991, p.\ ix) noted: “strategic thinking is the art of outdoing an
adversary, knowing that the adversary is trying to do the same to you”,
and Levine, Bernard and Nagel (2017, p.\ 2392) defined strategic
intelligence as “the ability to anticipate competitors’ behavior and
preempt it”. Consistent with such conceptualizations, studies of strategic
thinking often use zero-sum, dominance-solvable games to study strategic
thinking (e.g., Chou, McConnel \& Nagel, 2009; Fehr \& Huck, 2016; Nagel,
1995). These are competitive strategic interactions in which the game can
be “solved” through a step-by-step reasoning process whereby individuals
iteratively rule out dominated strategies one at a time under an
assumption of mutual rationality of the players (Crawford, 2013).
Cognitive hierarchy (Camerer, 2003; Camerer et al., 2015) and
level-\textit{k} models (Arad \& Rubinstein, 2012; Nagel, 1995) take an
individual-difference approach to strategic thinking. They distinguish
between deep and shallow strategic thinkers based on the number of steps
of iterated reasoning they employ in such games (which are inferred from
participants’ behavioral choices rather than measured directly). Unlike
shallow strategic thinkers, deep strategic thinkers engage in more steps
of iterated reasoning and choose strategies that best-respond to their
beliefs about others’ likely choices.  

The current conceptualization of strategic thinking challenges and
complements these prevailing models in two important ways. First, it does
not assume that strategic thinking is inherently antagonistic. Rather, it
acknowledges that thinking about different actors, their possible actions,
and the potential outcomes they may experience, can also play an important
role in promoting coordination and collaboration in dyads and groups
(Cosmides, 1989; De Freitas, Thomas, DeScioli \& Pinker, 2019; De
Kwaadsteniet \& Van Dijk, 2010; Silva \& Mousavidin, 2015; Takagishi et
al., 2010; Thomas, DeScioli, Haque \& Pinker, 2014). Hence, the current
conceptualization of strategic thinking makes it applicable across a wide
range of social situations characterized by outcome interdependence
(Gerpott et al., 2018; Halevy, Chou \& Murnighan, 2012; Halevy \&
Phillips, 2015). Second, the current conceptualization of strategic
thinking replaces the unidimensional focus on number of steps of iterated
reasoning as the sole criterion for depth of strategic reasoning with a
multifaceted framework that builds on the notion that decision makers may
allocate their attention differentially to different actors, courses of
action, and potential outcomes in strategic interactions (Adams et al.,
2011; Halevy, 2016; Halevy \& Chou, 2014; Ocasio, 1997). Considering
different foci in social decision making resulted in four strategic
orientations — the egocentric, dependency, impact, and altercentric
strategic orientations — which jointly provide a well-rounded
conceptualization of strategic thinking. 

The main methodological contribution of the current paper is in introducing
the Strategic Thinking Scale (STS) as a tool for assessing the egocentric,
dependency, impact, and altercentric strategic orientations. The current
research illustrates the usefulness of this 12-item measure for studying
individual thinking and behavior in the context of a consequential,
ongoing collective event. The broad applicability of the proposed
multifaceted model is mirrored in the broad applicability of the STS,
which can be applied to studying individual thinking and behavior across a
wide range of interactive contexts.  

\subsection[Empirical and Practical Implications]{Empirical
and Practical Implications}
Alongside the aforementioned theoretical and methodological contributions,
the exploratory study reported in this paper also has potential empirical
and practical implications. First, the findings enhance our understanding
of strategic thinking by showing that different strategic orientations are
distinct yet interrelated. Despite the modest association between
intentions to comply with social distancing guidelines and donation of
money in the current study, strategic thinking about the first decision
problem correlated positively with strategic thinking about the second
decision problem.\footnote{ The 12 items of the strategic thinking scale
  (STS) were administered twice, once in relation to intentions to comply
  with social distancing guidelines and a second time in relation to
  choices to donate the money received in the study to charitable
  organizations.  Whereas Tables 3 and 4 report results from regression
  analyses that use each set of STS items to predict the matching outcome
  variable, it is also possible to regress each outcome variable on the
  other set of STS items (i.e., assessed in relation to the other outcome
  variable). \par Using the four strategic orientation scores assessed in
  relation to donating money to predict compliance with social distancing
  restrictions and regulations showed that the four orientations jointly
  explained 6\% of the variance (Adj. \textit{R}\textsuperscript{2}=0.060,
  \textit{F}(4,992)=16.95, \textit{p}{\textless}.001; compared to 15.1\%
  when using the outcome-specific STS items, Table 3, Model 1). The
  standardized coefficients of the four strategic orientations were as
  follows: egocentric: \textit{$\beta $}=.045, \textit{p}=.222, dependency:
  \textit{$\beta $}=$-$.114, \textit{p}=.013, impact:
  \textit{$\beta $}=.234, \textit{p}{\textless}.001, and altercentric:
  \textit{$\beta $}=.078, \textit{p}=.070. \par Using the four strategic
  orientation scores assessed in relation to compliance with social
  distancing restrictions and regulations to predict in a logistic
  regression choices to donate the money showed that the four orientations
  jointly explained 7.2\% of the variance (Nagelkerke’s
  \textit{R}\textsuperscript{2}=0.072, $\chi^2$(4)=51.09,
  \textit{p}{\textless}.001; compared to 12.3\% when using the
  outcome-specific STS items, Table 4, Model 1). The odds ratio values for
  the four strategic orientations were as follows: egocentric:
  \textit{OR}=.906, \textit{p}=.273, dependency: \textit{OR}=921,
  \textit{p}=.319, impact: \textit{OR}=1.545, \textit{p}{\textless}.001,
  and altercentric: \textit{OR}=1.126, \textit{p}=.059. Thus, consistent
  with the positive associations between strategic thinking scores as
  assessed in relation to these two decisions (depicted in Table 2), the
  two sets of responses to the STS items predicted both the corresponding
  outcome variable and the other outcome variable. At the same time,
  responses to each set of STS items predicted the corresponding outcome
  measure more strongly than they predicted the other outcome measure.}
Future research may examine the generalizability of this pattern across
different decision contexts.  Second, the current findings enhance our
understanding of the factors that shape socially responsible behavior by
the public during an escalating pandemic that has altered the lives of
individuals, communities, and entire societies dramatically. Specifically,
the results indicate that the impact strategic orientation, that is,
thinking about how one’s actions influence others’ outcomes, correlated
positively with past compliance with social distancing guidelines, with
intentions to comply with social distancing guidelines in the future, and
with actual donation of money in the study. Future research is required to
examine the extent to which this insight can be implemented to design
beneficial large-scale interventions that focus on supporting individual
thinking through the impact strategic orientation.

\subsection[Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions ]{\bfseries
Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions }
Its exploratory nature notwithstanding, the fact that the current research
was highly powered, used a diverse sample of respondents from many
different countries, and studied consequential behaviors in real time
(i.e., when individuals were grappling with these issues in their
communities) are notable strengths of the current paper. At the same time,
however, the current research has several limitations that offer promising
directions for future research on strategic thinking and behavior. 

First, whereas the current study assessed actual donation decisions, it
relied on self-reports to assess past compliance, and intentions to comply
in the future, with social distancing guidelines. Future research may seek
to supplement such self-reports with other-reports to overcome the
established limitations of self-report measures. Second, recall that the
instructions for the donation decision explicitly highlighted the
strategic nature of the donation decision by articulating that the
research team will donate additional money if more than 50\% of the study
participants will choose to donate their money (similar to donation
matching mechanisms that many institutions employ). Future research may
directly examine the extent to which this particular feature moderates the
observed relations between strategic orientations and donation behavior.
Third, participants were prompted to think about how their own actions and
others’ actions influence their own and others’ outcomes by virtue of
completing the 12-item STS prior to reporting their compliance with social
distancing guidelines and making their donation decision. This particular
procedure may have strengthened the observed associations between
self-reported strategic orientations and the two outcome measures studied
in the current research. Future research may use alternative procedures to
reduce the extent to which measuring strategic thinking primes individuals
or induces them to think more thoroughly and systematically about
interactive decision problems than they otherwise would. Fourth, the
correlational nature of the current research precludes the possibility of
claiming that strategic thinking caused the strategic behaviors assessed
in this study. Research on strategic thinking typically measures, rather
than manipulates, this mental process (e.g., Burks, Carpenter, Goette \&
Rustichini, 2009; Camerer, 2003; Carpenter, Graham \& Wolf, 2013;
Coricelli \& Nagel, 2009). Nonetheless, future research may seek to
experimentally manipulate decision makers’ strategic thinking as a means
to investigate causal effects of strategic orientations on social decision
making. Fifth, the inclusion of participants from many different countries
in the current study raises the possibilities that different participants
may have interpreted the items of the strategic thinking scale
differently, valued the donation amount of \$0.50 differently, and have
thought differently about the meaning of compliance with social distancing
guidelines (e.g., due to differences in the number of confirmed infections
in their community, the nature and number of the social distancing
guidelines in their community, or the degree to which social distancing
guidelines were formally enforced by authorities).\footnote{ Study
participants were residents of many different countries that vary along
multiple dimensions (including the spread of the pandemic at the time of
the study, the enforcement of social distancing restrictions at the time
of the study, cultural tightness-looseness, level of economic development,
and more). Further, pandemic-related phenomena varied considerably across
different regions and communities within countries. To explore whether
strategic orientations retain their explanatory power when considering the
variability in participants’ countries of residence in the current sample,
I conducted exploratory analyses in which I added dummy-coded variables
for the largest groups of participants (that jointly account for 781/1005
of the observations: Spain, Portugal and Italy combined, \textit{N}=199;
Poland, \textit{N}=162; and the U.S. and Canada combined, \textit{N}=161;
the UK, \textit{N}=259, served as the reference category in these
analyses). \par Replicating the findings of Model 1 in Table 3, a linear
regression analysis predicting intentions to comply with social distancing
guidelines indicated non-significant coefficients for the egocentric
(\textit{B}=.055, \textit{SE}=.036, \textit{p}=.12), dependency
(\textit{B}=.025, \textit{SE}=.033, \textit{p}=.44), and altercentric
(\textit{B}=$-$.007, \textit{SE}=.026, \textit{p}=.79) strategic
orientations, and a significant positive coefficient for the impact
strategic orientation (\textit{B}=.25, \textit{SE}=.032,
\textit{p}{\textless}.001). The coefficients for the U.S. and Canada
(\textit{B}=$-$.305, \textit{SE}=.082, \textit{p}{\textless}.001) and Poland
(\textit{B}=$-$.238, \textit{SE}=.083, \textit{p}=.004) were significant,
whereas the coefficient for Spain, Italy, and Portugal was not
(\textit{B}=$-$.039, \textit{SE}=.076, \textit{p}=.61).\par Largely
replicating the findings of Model 1 in Table 4, a logistic regression
analysis predicting donation decisions indicated significant coefficients
for the egocentric (\textit{B}=$-$.202, \textit{SE}=.085, \textit{p}=.018),
dependency (\textit{B}=$-$.175, \textit{SE}=.082, \textit{p}=.033), and
impact strategic orientations (\textit{B}=.565, \textit{SE}=.085,
\textit{p}{\textless}.001). The coefficient for the altercentric strategic
orientation was not significant (\textit{B}=.046, \textit{SE}=.080,
\textit{p}=.56). The coefficients for the U.S. and Canada
(\textit{B}=$-$.155, \textit{SE}=.242, \textit{p}=.52) and Spain, Italy, and
Portugal (\textit{B}=$-$.046, \textit{SE}=.237, \textit{p}=.85) were not
significant, whereas the coefficient for Poland was significant
(\textit{B}=$-$.907, \textit{SE}=.228, \textit{p}{\textless}.001). \par
Taken together, the findings for both exploratory regression analyses
suggest that strategic orientations maintain their predictive value even
when accounting for the countries of residence of the largest groups of
participants in the study.} Future research is required to establish
the meaningfulness of the strategic thinking items in different cultural
contexts and to systematically explore the role of community-level factors
(cultural, economic, and pandemic-related) in shaping social behavior
during the COVID-19 pandemic. The choice to focus on individual-level
predictors of compliance with social distancing guidelines and donation
decisions was motivated by the theoretical interest in individuals’
strategic thinking. Future research may enhance our understanding of
individual reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic and other collective events
by employing multilevel models that consider individual-level factors
(e.g., strategic orientations, gender, age) alongside group-level factors
(e.g., the size and density of individuals’ social networks; economic and
cultural characteristics of participants’ country of residence, and more)
to predict outcome measures of interest. For example, future research may
integrate individual-level characteristics with community-level
characteristics (such as the number of confirmed infections in the
community, the number of social distancing orders in the community, and
levels of civic engagement and social capital in a given community;
Barrios, Benmelech, Hochberg, Sapienza \& Zingales, 2020; Ding, Levine,
Lin \& Xie, 2020). Such multilevel models may be able to explain a
substantial portion of the variance in social behavior in the context of
the COVID-19 pandemic and other collective events. 

Some of the findings of the current research similarly offer interesting
directions for future research on strategic thinking and behavior. For
example, whereas Table 3 shows that only the impact strategic orientation
is significantly associated with greater intentions to comply with social
distancing guidelines, Table 4 shows significant associations (in opposite
directions) between multiple strategic orientations and donation decision.
The two outcome measures are clearly distinct (as evident from the weak
positive association between them). Nonetheless, it may be worthwhile to
speculate about the reasons for the discrepant patterns. One possibility
is that charitable giving is unequivocally altruistic (because it benefits
others at a cost to oneself) whereas compliance with social distancing may
be considered a form of “tainted altruism” (Zlatev \& Miller, 2016) as it
potentially benefits (protects) oneself as well as others. Hence,
strategic orientations that entail focusing one’s attention on one’s own
outcomes show significant negative coefficients when predicting donation
decisions (Table 4, Model 1), but not when predicting compliance with
social distancing guidelines (Table 3, Model 1). Another possibility is
that the explicit instructions concerning the additional donation by the
research team, which created a step-level public good problem, altered how
participants thought about the donation decision as compared to the how
they thought about compliance with social distancing guidelines (which can
be viewed as a social dilemma involving the provision of a continuous,
rather than a step-level, public good). This possibility is supported by
the finding that expecting others to give associated positively with
donation decisions (Table 4), whereas expecting others to comply with
social distancing guidelines was unrelated to intentions to comply (Table
3). Because the two outcome measures employed in the current study differ
on multiple dimensions (e.g., in the stakes involved, in the assessment of
actual behavior versus self-reported behavior), it is difficult to
decisively determine why multiple strategic orientations associated
significantly with donation decisions whereas only one strategic
orientation associated significantly with intentions to comply with social
distancing guidelines. However, it is important to note that across the
two decision problems, the impact strategic orientation showed a robust
positive association with socially responsible behavior. 

Another intriguing empirical finding that warrants future research concerns
the discrepancies that emerged between the simple correlations reported in
Table 2 and the coefficients in the multiple regressions reported in
Tables 3 and 4. Because the four strategic orientations are interrelated,
using all four of them as simultaneous predictors of the two outcome
measures resulted in a different pattern of associations. Specifically,
whereas all four strategic orientations correlated positively with
intentions to comply with social distancing guidelines in Table 2, only
the coefficient for the impact strategic orientation was positive and
significant in the regression analyses reported in Table 3. Future
research should thus be mindful of the interrelations among the four
strategic orientations when using them to predict outcome variables of
interest. Finally, future research may also explore whether strategic
orientations interact with experiences of threat, feelings of hope, and
participants’ demographic characteristics in shaping strategic behavior.  

\subsection[Conclusion ]{\bfseries Conclusion }
Strategic thinking is a fascinating mental process. The current paper
introduced a novel multifaceted conceptualization, and a corresponding
self-report measure, of strategic thinking. Distinguishing between
complementary components of strategic thinking based on the foci of
decision makers’ attention proved useful for explaining individuals’
social behavior in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. The findings
of the exploratory study reported in this paper suggest that the
egocentric, dependency, impact, and altercentric strategic orientations
are distinct yet interrelated, and that the impact strategic orientation,
in particular, positively predicts intentions to comply with social
distancing guidelines and actual donations to charitable organizations.
Future research may examine the extent to which strategic orientations, as
conceptualized and measured in the current research, explain social
behavior also in other contexts, beyond the current pandemic. 

\section*{References}
\begin{hangparas}{1em}{1}

Adams, R. B., Licht, A. N., \& Sagiv, L. (2011). Shareholders and
stakeholders: How do directors decide?. \textit{Strategic Management
Journal}, \textit{32}(12), 1331--1355.

Arad, A., \& Rubinstein, A. (2012). The 11--20 money request game: A level-k
reasoning study. \textit{American Economic Review}, \textit{102}(7),
3561--3573.

Barrios, J. M., Benmelech, E., Hochberg, Y. V., Sapienza, P., \& Zingales,
L. (2020). \textit{Civic capital and social distancing during the covid-19
pandemic} (No. w27320). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Bornstein, G. (1992). The free-rider problem in intergroup conflicts over
step-level and continuous public goods. \textit{Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 62}(4), 597--606.

Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Singh, K., Field, J. G., \& Pierce, C. A.
(2015). Correlational effect size benchmarks. \textit{Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100}(2), 431--449.

Brown, A. L., Camerer, C. F., \& Lovallo, D. (2012). To review or not to
review? Limited strategic thinking at the movie box
office. \textit{American Economic Journal: Microeconomics}, \textit{4}(2),
1--26.

Burks, S. V., Carpenter, J. P., Goette, L., \& Rustichini, A. (2009).
Cognitive skills affect economic preferences, strategic behavior, and job
attachment. \textit{Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences}, \textit{106}(19), 7745--7750.

Cacioppo, J. T., \& Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for
cognition. \textit{Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology}, \textit{42}(1), 116--131.

Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioural studies of strategic thinking in
games. \textit{Trends in Cognitive }
\textit{Sciences}, \textit{7}(5), 225--231.

Camerer, C. F., Ho, T. H., \& Chong, J. K. (2015). A psychological approach
to strategic thinking in games. \textit{Current Opinion in Behavioral
Sciences}, \textit{3}, 157--162.

Carpenter, J., Graham, M., \& Wolf, J. (2013). Cognitive ability and
strategic sophistication. \textit{Games and Economic
Behavior}, \textit{80}, 115--130.

Chou, E., McConnell, M., Nagel, R., \& Plott, C. R. (2009). The control of
game form recognition in experiments: Understanding dominant strategy
failures in a simple two person “guessing” game. \textit{Experimental
Economics}, \textit{12}(2), 159--179.

Coricelli, G., \& Nagel, R. (2009). Neural correlates of depth of strategic
reasoning in medial prefrontal cortex. \textit{Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences}, \textit{106}(23), 9163--9168.

Cosmides, L. (1989). The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection
shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Wason selection
task. \textit{Cognition}, \textit{31}(3), 187--276.

Crawford, V. P. (2013). Boundedly rational versus optimization-based models
of strategic thinking and learning in games. \textit{Journal of Economic
Literature}, \textit{51}(2), 512--27.

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence
for a multidimensional approach. \textit{Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology}, \textit{44}(1), 113.

De Freitas, J., Thomas, K., DeScioli, P., \& Pinker, S. (2019). Common
knowledge, coordination, and strategic mentalizing in human social
life. \textit{Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences}, \textit{116}(28), 13751--13758.

De Kwaadsteniet, E. W., \& Van Dijk, E. (2010). Social status as a cue for
tacit coordination. \textit{Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology}, \textit{46}(3), 515--524.

Ding, W., Levine, R., Lin, C., \& Xie, W. (2020). Social Distancing and
Social Capital: Why US Counties Respond Differently to
COVID-19. \textit{Available at SSRN 3624495}.

Dixit, A. K., \& Nalebuff, B. J. (1991). \textit{Thinking Strategically:
The Competitive Edge in Business, }
\textit{Politics, and Everyday Life}. New York: WW Norton \& Company.

Fehr, D., \& Huck, S. (2016). Who knows it is a game? On strategic
awareness and cognitive ability. \textit{Experimental
Economics}, \textit{19}(4), 713--726.

Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision
making. \textit{Journal of Economic Perspectives}, \textit{19}(4), 25--42.

Gee, L. K., \& Schreck, M. J. (2018). Do beliefs about peers matter for
donation matching? Experiments in the field and laboratory. \textit{Games
and Economic Behavior}, \textit{107}, 282--297.

Gerpott, F. H., Balliet, D., Columbus, S., Molho, C., \& de Vries, R. E.
(2018). How do people think about interdependence? A multidimensional
model of subjective outcome interdependence. \textit{Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology}, \textit{115}(4), 716--742.

Goldfarb, A., \& Xiao, M. (2011). Who thinks about the competition?
Managerial ability and strategic entry in US local telephone
markets. \textit{American Economic Review}, \textit{101}(7), 3130--3161.

Gollwitzer, A., Martel, C., Marshall, J., Höhs, J. M., \& Bargh, J. A.
(2020). Connecting self-reported social distancing to real-world behavior
at the individual and us state level. Available online at psyarxiv.com. 

Halevy, N. (2016). Strategic Thinking. \textit{Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 34, }1--66\textit{.}

Halevy, N. (2017). Preemptive strikes: Fear, hope, and defensive
aggression.\textit{ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112}(2),
224--237.

Halevy, N., Alzahawi, S., \& Dannals, J. (2020). A componential approach to
strategic thinking. Unpublished manuscript. 

Halevy, N., \& Chou, E. Y. (2014). How decisions happen: Focal points and
blind spots in interdependent decision making. \textit{Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology}, \textit{106}(3), 398--417.

Halevy, N., Chou, E. Y., \& Murnighan, J. K. (2012). Mind games: The mental
representation of conflict. \textit{Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology}, \textit{102}(1), 132--148.

Halevy, N., Cohen, T. R., Chou, E. Y., Katz, J. J., \& Panter, A. T.
(2014). Mental models at work: Cognitive causes and consequences of
conflict in organizations. \textit{Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin}, \textit{40}(1), 92--110.

Halevy, N., Halali, E., \& Zlatev, J. J. (2019). Brokerage and brokering:
An integrative review and organizing framework for third party
influence. \textit{Academy of Management Annals}, \textit{13}(1), 215--239.

Halevy, N., \& Phillips, L. T. (2015). Conflict templates in negotiations,
disputes, joint decisions, and tournaments. \textit{Social Psychological
and Personality Science}, \textit{6}(1), 13--22.

Jordan, J., Yoeli, E., \& Rand, D. (2020). Don’t get it or don’t spread it?
Comparing self-interested versus prosocially framed COVID-19 prevention
messaging. Available online at \url{psyarxiv.com}.

Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbult, C. E., \&
Van Lange, P. A. (2003). \textit{An Atlas of Interpersonal Situations}.
Cambridge University Press.

Kelley, H. H., \& Thibaut, J. W. (1978). \textit{Interpersonal Relations: A
Theory of Interdependence}. New York: Wiley.

Levine, S. S., Bernard, M., \& Nagel, R. (2017). Strategic intelligence:
The cognitive capability to anticipate competitor
behavior. \textit{Strategic Management Journal}, \textit{38}(12),
2390--2423.

Meier, S. (2007). Do subsidies increase charitable giving in the long run?
Matching donations in a field experiment. \textit{Journal of the European
Economic Association}, \textit{5}(6), 1203--1222.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., \& Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of
stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and
what really counts. \textit{Academy of Management Review}, \textit{22}(4),
853--886.

Nagel, R. (1995). Unraveling in guessing games: An experimental
study. \textit{The American Economic Review}, \textit{85}(5), 1313--1326. 

Nakashima, N. A., Halali, E., \& Halevy, N. (2017). Third parties promote
cooperative norms in repeated interactions. \textit{Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology}, \textit{68}, 212--223.

Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the
firm. \textit{Strategic management journal}, \textit{18}(S1), 187--206.

Orquin, J. L., \& Mueller Loose, S. M. (2013). Attention and choice: A
review on eye movements in decision making. \textit{Acta Psychologica,
144, }190–206. 

Östling, R., Wang, J. T. Y., Chou, E. Y., \& Camerer, C. F. (2011). Testing
game theory in the field: Swedish LUPI lottery games. \textit{American
Economic Journal: Microeconomics}, \textit{3}(3), 1--33.

Richard, F. D., Bond Jr, C. F., \& Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred
years of social psychology quantitatively described. \textit{Review of
General Psychology, 7}(4), 331--363.

Rusbult, C. E., \& Van Lange, P. A. (2003). Interdependence, interaction,
and relationships. \textit{Annual Review of Psychology}, \textit{54}(1),
351--375.

Skyrms, B. (2004). \textit{The stag hunt and the evolution of social
structure}. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values:
Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. \textit{Advances
in Experimental Social Psychology,} \textit{25}, 1--65. 

\vfill
\break

Silva, L., \& Mousavidin, E. (2015). Strategic thinking in virtual worlds:
Studying World of Warcraft. \textit{Computers in human
behavior}, \textit{46}, 168--180.

Sivanathan, N., Pillutla, M. M., \& Murnighan, J. K. (2008). Power gained,
power lost. \textit{Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes}, \textit{105}(2), 135--146.

Takagishi, H., Kameshima, S., Schug, J., Koizumi, M., \& Yamagishi, T.
(2010). Theory of mind enhances preference for fairness. \textit{Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology}, \textit{105}(1--2), 130--137.

Thomas, K. A., DeScioli, P., Haque, O. S., \& Pinker, S. (2014). The
psychology of coordination and common knowledge. \textit{Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology}, \textit{107}(4), 657--676.

Van Bavel, J. J., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A.,
Cikara, M., ... \& Drury, J. (2020). Using social and behavioural science
to support COVID-19 pandemic response. \textit{Nature Human Behaviour,}
\textit{4,} 1--12.

Webster, D. M., \& Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need
for cognitive closure. \textit{Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology}, \textit{67}(6), 1049.

Zlatev, J. J., \& Miller, D. T. (2016). Selfishly benevolent or
benevolently selfish: When self-interest undermines versus promotes
prosocial behavior. \textit{Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes}, \textit{137}, 112--122.

\end{hangparas}

\end{document}
