1
|
Baader M, Starmer C, Tufano F, Gächter S. Introducing IOS 11 as an extended interactive version of the 'Inclusion of Other in the Self' scale to estimate relationship closeness. Sci Rep 2024; 14:8901. [PMID: 38632305 PMCID: PMC11024120 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-58042-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2023] [Accepted: 03/25/2024] [Indexed: 04/19/2024] Open
Abstract
The study of relationship closeness has a long history in psychology and is currently expanding across the social sciences, including economics. Estimating relationship closeness requires appropriate tools. Here, we introduce and test a tool for estimating relationship closeness: 'IOS11'. The IOS11 scale has an 11-point response scale and is a refinement of the widely used Inclusion-of-Other-in-the-Self scale. Our tool has three key features. First, the IOS11 scale is easy to understand and administer. Second, we provide a portable, interactive interface for the IOS11 scale, which can be used in lab and online studies. Third, and crucially, based on within-participant correlations of 751 individuals, we demonstrate strong validity of the IOS11 scale in terms of representing features of relationships captured by a range of more complex survey instruments. Based on these correlations we find that the IOS11 scale outperforms the IOS scale and performs as well as the related Oneness scale.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Malte Baader
- Department of Finance, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
| | - Chris Starmer
- School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England
| | - Fabio Tufano
- School of Business, University of Leicester, Leicester, England.
| | - Simon Gächter
- School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Van Doesum NJ, Murphy RO, Gallucci M, Aharonov-Majar E, Athenstaedt U, Au WT, Bai L, Böhm R, Bovina I, Buchan NR, Chen XP, Dumont KB, Engelmann JB, Eriksson K, Euh H, Fiedler S, Friesen J, Gächter S, Garcia C, González R, Graf S, Growiec K, Guimond S, Hřebíčková M, Immer-Bernold E, Joireman J, Karagonlar G, Kawakami K, Kiyonari T, Kou Y, Kyrtsis AA, Lay S, Leonardelli GJ, Li NP, Li Y, Maciejovsky B, Manesi Z, Mashuri A, Mok A, Moser KS, Moták L, Netedu A, Platow MJ, Raczka-Winkler K, Reinders Folmer CP, Reyna C, Romano A, Shalvi S, Simão C, Stivers AW, Strimling P, Tsirbas Y, Utz S, van der Meij L, Waldzus S, Wang Y, Weber B, Weisel O, Wildschut T, Winter F, Wu J, Yong JC, Van Lange PAM. Reply to Komatsu et al.: From local social mindfulness to global sustainability efforts? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2022; 119:e2119303118. [PMID: 35046048 PMCID: PMC8794841 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2119303118] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Niels J Van Doesum
- Social, Economic and Organisational Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands;
- Knowledge Centre for Psychology and Economic Behaviour, Leiden University 2312 HS Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Ryan O Murphy
- Department of Economics, University of Zürich 8006 Zürich, Switzerland
- Morningstar Investment Management, Chicago, IL 60602
| | - Marcello Gallucci
- Faculty of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca 20126 Milan, Italy
| | - Efrat Aharonov-Majar
- Department of Psychology, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 8410501, Israel
| | - Ursula Athenstaedt
- Department of Social Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Graz 8010 Graz, Austria
| | - Wing Tung Au
- Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong, China
| | - Liying Bai
- Department of Applied Psychology, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350108, China
| | - Robert Böhm
- Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark
- Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark
- Copenhagen Center for Social Data Science, University of Copenhagen 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark
| | - Inna Bovina
- Department of Clinical and Legal Psychology, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education, Moscow 127051, Russia
| | - Nancy R Buchan
- Sonoco International Business Department, Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208
| | - Xiao-Ping Chen
- Department of Management and Organization, Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
| | - Kitty B Dumont
- School of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, University of South Africa 0003 Pretoria, South Africa
| | - Jan B Engelmann
- Center for Research in Experimental Economics and Political Decision Making, Amsterdam School of Economics, University of Amsterdam 1001 NJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Behavioral and Experimental Economics, The Tinbergen Institute 1082 MS Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kimmo Eriksson
- Center for Cultural Evolution, Stockholm University 114 18 Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Hyun Euh
- Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
| | - Susann Fiedler
- Department of Strategy & Innovation, Institute of Cognition & Behavior, Vienna University of Economics and Business 1020 Vienna, Austria
| | - Justin Friesen
- Department of Psychology, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB R3N 0G1, Canada
| | - Simon Gächter
- Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom
| | - Camilo Garcia
- Laboratory of Social Interaction, Psychology Department, Universidad Veracruzana, Veracruz 91095, Mexico
| | - Roberto González
- Escuela de Psicología, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 7820436, Chile
| | - Sylvie Graf
- Department of Personality and Social Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Czech Academy of Sciences 602 00 Brno, The Czech Republic
| | - Katarzyna Growiec
- Department of Social and Personality Psychology, Institute of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities 03-815 Warsaw, Poland
| | - Serge Guimond
- Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive, Université Clermont Auvergne (CNRS, LAPSCO), Clermont-Ferrand F-63000 , France
| | - Martina Hřebíčková
- Department of Personality and Social Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Czech Academy of Sciences 602 00 Brno, The Czech Republic
| | | | - Jeff Joireman
- Department of Marketing and International Business, Carson College of Business, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4730
| | - Gokhan Karagonlar
- Department of Business, School of Business, Dokuz Eylül University 35390 Izmir, Turkey
| | - Kerry Kawakami
- Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada
| | - Toko Kiyonari
- School of Social Informatics, Aoyama Gakuin University, Kanagawa 252-5258, Japan
| | - Yu Kou
- Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University 100875 Beijing, China
| | - Alexandros-Andreas Kyrtsis
- Department of Political Science and Public Administration, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens 10678 Athens, Greece
| | - Siugmin Lay
- Centro de Medición Mide UC, Escuela de Psicología, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile 7820436 Santiago, Chile
| | - Geoffrey J Leonardelli
- Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3E6, Canada
- Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3E6, Canada
| | - Norman P Li
- School of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University, Singapore 178903
| | - Yang Li
- Graduate School of Informatics, Nagoya University, Nagoya 4648610, Japan
| | | | - Zoi Manesi
- Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Institute for Brain and Behavior Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 1018 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ali Mashuri
- Department of Psychology, University of Brawijaya, Malang 65145, Indonesia
- Department of Social Sciences, University of Brawijaya, Malang 65145, Indonesia
| | - Aurelia Mok
- Department of Management, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
| | - Karin S Moser
- Business School, London South Bank University, London SE1 0AA, United Kingdom
- School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
| | - Ladislav Moták
- Centre de Recherche en Psychologie de la Cognition, du Langage et de l'Emotion, Maison de la Recherche, Aix-Marseille Université 13100 Aix-en-Provence, France
| | - Adrian Netedu
- Department of Sociology and Social Work, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi 700460 Iasi, Romania
| | - Michael J Platow
- Research School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
| | - Karolina Raczka-Winkler
- Institute of Experimental Epileptology and Cognition Research, University of Bonn 53127 Bonn, Germany
| | - Christopher P Reinders Folmer
- Department of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ghent University 9000 Ghent, Belgium
- Center for Law and Behavior, Department of Jurisprudence, Amsterdam Law School, University of Amsterdam, 1001 NA Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Cecilia Reyna
- Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba 5000 Córdoba, Argentina
| | - Angelo Romano
- Social, Economic and Organisational Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Shaul Shalvi
- Center for Research in Experimental Economics and Political Decision Making, Amsterdam School of Economics, University of Amsterdam 1001 NJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Cláudia Simão
- Católica-Lisbon School of Business and Economics, Universidade Católica Portuguesa 1649-023 Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Adam W Stivers
- Psychology Department, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA 99258
| | | | - Yannis Tsirbas
- Department of Political Science and Public Administration, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens 10678 Athens, Greece
| | - Sonja Utz
- Social Media Lab, Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien 72076 Tübingen, Germany
- Department of Psychology, University of Tübingen 72074 Tübingen, Germany
| | - Leander van der Meij
- Department of Industrial Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Sven Waldzus
- Centro de Investigação e Intervenção Social, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Lisboa 1649-026, Portugal
| | - Yiwen Wang
- Institute of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350108, China
| | - Bernd Weber
- Institute of Experimental Epileptology and Cognition Research, University of Bonn 53127 Bonn, Germany
| | - Ori Weisel
- Coller School of Management, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel 6997801
| | - Tim Wildschut
- Center for Research on Self and Identity, School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom
| | - Fabian Winter
- Mechanisms of Normative Change, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 53115 Bonn, Germany
| | - Junhui Wu
- Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences 100101 Beijing, China
- Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences 100049 Beijing, China
| | - Jose C Yong
- School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798
| | - Paul A M Van Lange
- Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Institute for Brain and Behavior Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 1018 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Isler O, Gächter S, Maule AJ, Starmer C. Contextualised strong reciprocity explains selfless cooperation despite selfish intuitions and weak social heuristics. Sci Rep 2021; 11:13868. [PMID: 34230544 PMCID: PMC8260766 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93412-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2021] [Accepted: 06/15/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Humans frequently cooperate for collective benefit, even in one-shot social dilemmas. This provides a challenge for theories of cooperation. Two views focus on intuitions but offer conflicting explanations. The Social Heuristics Hypothesis argues that people with selfish preferences rely on cooperative intuitions and predicts that deliberation reduces cooperation. The Self-Control Account emphasizes control over selfish intuitions and is consistent with strong reciprocity-a preference for conditional cooperation in one-shot dilemmas. Here, we reconcile these explanations with each other as well as with strong reciprocity. We study one-shot cooperation across two main dilemma contexts, provision and maintenance, and show that cooperation is higher in provision than maintenance. Using time-limit manipulations, we experimentally study the cognitive processes underlying this robust result. Supporting the Self-Control Account, people are intuitively selfish in maintenance, with deliberation increasing cooperation. In contrast, consistent with the Social Heuristics Hypothesis, deliberation tends to increase the likelihood of free-riding in provision. Contextual differences between maintenance and provision are observed across additional measures: reaction time patterns of cooperation; social dilemma understanding; perceptions of social appropriateness; beliefs about others' cooperation; and cooperation preferences. Despite these dilemma-specific asymmetries, we show that preferences, coupled with beliefs, successfully predict the high levels of cooperation in both maintenance and provision dilemmas. While the effects of intuitions are context-dependent and small, the widespread preference for strong reciprocity is the primary driver of one-shot cooperation. We advance the Contextualised Strong Reciprocity account as a unifying framework and consider its implications for research and policy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ozan Isler
- grid.1024.70000000089150953School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 4000 Australia ,Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society and Technology, Brisbane, 4000 Australia
| | - Simon Gächter
- grid.4563.40000 0004 1936 8868School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD UK ,grid.469877.30000 0004 0397 0846CESifo, 81679 Munich, Germany ,grid.424879.40000 0001 1010 4418IZA, 53113 Bonn, Germany
| | - A. John Maule
- grid.9909.90000 0004 1936 8403Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS6 1AN UK
| | - Chris Starmer
- grid.4563.40000 0004 1936 8868School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
|
5
|
Abstract
Strong reciprocity explains prosocial cooperation by the presence of individuals who incur costs to help those who helped them ('strong positive reciprocity') and to punish those who wronged them ('strong negative reciprocity'). Theories of social preferences predict that in contrast to 'strong reciprocators', self-regarding people cooperate and punish only if there are sufficient future benefits. Here, we test this prediction in a two-stage design. First, participants are classified according to their disposition towards strong positive reciprocity as either dispositional conditional cooperators (DCC) or dispositional free riders (DFR). Participants then play a one-shot public goods game, either with or without punishment. As expected, DFR cooperate only when punishment is possible, whereas DCC cooperate without punishment. Surprisingly, dispositions towards strong positive reciprocity are unrelated to strong negative reciprocity: punishment by DCC and DFR is practically identical. The 'burden of cooperation' is thus carried by a larger set of individuals than previously assumed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Till O Weber
- School of Economics, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, 4, Ireland.
- Geary Institute for Public Policy, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, 4, Ireland.
- Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, Sir Clive Granger Building, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
| | - Ori Weisel
- Coller School of Management, Tel Aviv University, 6997801, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | - Simon Gächter
- Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, Sir Clive Granger Building, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
- CESifo, 81679, Munich, Germany.
- IZA Institute of Labour Economics, 53113, Bonn, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Arechar AA, Gächter S, Molleman L. Conducting interactive experiments online. Exp Econ 2018; 21:99-131. [PMID: 29449783 PMCID: PMC5807491 DOI: 10.1007/s10683-017-9527-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 65] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2016] [Revised: 04/28/2017] [Accepted: 05/02/2017] [Indexed: 05/03/2023]
Abstract
Online labor markets provide new opportunities for behavioral research, but conducting economic experiments online raises important methodological challenges. This particularly holds for interactive designs. In this paper, we provide a methodological discussion of the similarities and differences between interactive experiments conducted in the laboratory and online. To this end, we conduct a repeated public goods experiment with and without punishment using samples from the laboratory and the online platform Amazon Mechanical Turk. We chose to replicate this experiment because it is long and logistically complex. It therefore provides a good case study for discussing the methodological and practical challenges of online interactive experimentation. We find that basic behavioral patterns of cooperation and punishment in the laboratory are replicable online. The most important challenge of online interactive experiments is participant dropout. We discuss measures for reducing dropout and show that, for our case study, dropouts are exogenous to the experiment. We conclude that data quality for interactive experiments via the Internet is adequate and reliable, making online interactive experimentation a potentially valuable complement to laboratory studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Simon Gächter
- CeDEx, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD UK
- School of Economics, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD UK
- CESifo, Schackstrasse 4, 80539 Munich, Germany
- IZA, Schaumburg-Lippe-Strasse 5-9, 53113 Bonn, Germany
| | - Lucas Molleman
- CeDEx, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD UK
- Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Lentzeallee 94, 14195 Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Abstract
Social cooperation often requires collectively beneficial but individually costly restraint to maintain a public good1-4, or it needs costly generosity to create one1,5. Status quo effects6 predict that maintaining a public good is easier than providing a new one. Here we show experimentally and with simulations that even under identical incentives, low levels of cooperation (the 'tragedy of the commons'2) are systematically more likely in Maintenance than Provision. Across three series of experiments, we find that strong and weak positive reciprocity, known to be fundamental tendencies underpinning human cooperation7-10, are substantially diminished under Maintenance compared to Provision. As we show in a fourth experiment, the opposite holds for negative reciprocity ('punishment'). Our findings suggest that incentives to avoid the 'tragedy of the commons' need to contend with dilemma-specific reciprocity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Gächter
- School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK. .,CESifo, 81679, Munich, Germany. .,IZA Institute of Labour Economics, 53113, Bonn, Germany.
| | - Felix Kölle
- Faculty of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Cologne, 50923, Cologne, Germany
| | - Simone Quercia
- Institute for Applied Microeconomics, University of Bonn, 53113, Bonn, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Stewart N, Gächter S, Noguchi T, Mullett TL. Eye Movements in Strategic Choice. J Behav Decis Mak 2015; 29:137-156. [PMID: 27513881 PMCID: PMC4959529 DOI: 10.1002/bdm.1901] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2014] [Revised: 07/22/2015] [Accepted: 07/30/2015] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
In risky and other multiattribute choices, the process of choosing is well described by random walk or drift diffusion models in which evidence is accumulated over time to threshold. In strategic choices, level‐k and cognitive hierarchy models have been offered as accounts of the choice process, in which people simulate the choice processes of their opponents or partners. We recorded the eye movements in 2 × 2 symmetric games including dominance‐solvable games like prisoner's dilemma and asymmetric coordination games like stag hunt and hawk–dove. The evidence was most consistent with the accumulation of payoff differences over time: we found longer duration choices with more fixations when payoffs differences were more finely balanced, an emerging bias to gaze more at the payoffs for the action ultimately chosen, and that a simple count of transitions between payoffs—whether or not the comparison is strategically informative—was strongly associated with the final choice. The accumulator models do account for these strategic choice process measures, but the level‐k and cognitive hierarchy models do not. © 2015 The Authors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Collapse
|
9
|
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Gächter
- Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Gächter S, Huang L, Sefton M. Combining "real effort" with induced effort costs: the ball-catching task. Exp Econ 2015; 19:687-712. [PMID: 28035190 PMCID: PMC5153668 DOI: 10.1007/s10683-015-9465-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/30/2015] [Revised: 08/13/2015] [Accepted: 08/30/2015] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Abstract
We introduce the "ball-catching task", a novel computerized task, which combines a tangible action ("catching balls") with induced material cost of effort. The central feature of the ball-catching task is that it allows researchers to manipulate the cost of effort function as well as the production function, which permits quantitative predictions on effort provision. In an experiment with piece-rate incentives we find that the comparative static and the point predictions on effort provision are remarkably accurate. We also present experimental findings from three classic experiments, namely, team production, gift exchange and tournament, using the task. All of the results are closely in line with the stylized facts from experiments using purely induced values. We conclude that the ball-catching task combines the advantages of real effort tasks with the use of induced values, which is useful for theory-testing purposes as well as for applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Gächter
- CeDEx and School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Sir Clive Granger Building, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD UK
- CESifo, Munich, Germany
- IZA, Bonn, Germany
| | - Lingbo Huang
- CeDEx and School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Sir Clive Granger Building, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD UK
| | - Martin Sefton
- CeDEx and School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Sir Clive Granger Building, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD UK
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Fehr E, Fischbacher U, Gächter S. Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms. Hum Nat 2015; 13:1-25. [PMID: 26192593 DOI: 10.1007/s12110-002-1012-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 344] [Impact Index Per Article: 38.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2000] [Accepted: 03/19/2001] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Abstract
This paper provides strong evidence challenging the self-interest assumption that dominates the behavioral sciences and much evolutionary thinking. The evidence indicates that many people have a tendency to voluntarily cooperate, if treated fairly, and to punish noncooperators. We call this behavioral propensity "strong reciprocity" and show empirically that it can lead to almost universal cooperation in circumstances in which purely self-interested behavior would cause a complete breakdown of cooperation. In addition, we show that people are willing to punish those who behaved unfairly towards a third person or who defected in a Prisoner's Dilemma game with a third person. This suggests that strong reciprocity is a powerful device for the enforcement of social norms involving, for example, food sharing or collective action. Strong reciprocity cannot be rationalized as an adaptive trait by the leading evolutionary theories of human cooperation (in other words, kin selection, reciprocal altruism, indirect reciprocity, and costly signaling theory). However, multilevel selection theories of cultural evolution are consistent with strong reciprocity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ernst Fehr
- Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zürich, Blümlisalpstr. 10, CH-8006, Zürich, Switzerland.
| | - Urs Fischbacher
- Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zürich, Blümlisalpstr. 10, CH-8006, Zürich, Switzerland
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Abstract
This paper reports data from three subject pools (n=717 subjects) using techniques based on those of Loewenstein, et al. (1989) and Blanco, et al. (2011) to obtain parameters, respectively, of stated and revealed inequality aversion. We provide a replication opportunity for those papers, with two innovations: (i) a design which allows stated and revealed preferences to be compared at the individual level; (ii) assessment of robustness of findings across subjects from a UK university, a Turkish university and Amazon Mechanical Turk. Our findings on stated aversion to inequality are qualitatively similar to those of Loewenstein, et al. in each of our subject pools, whereas there are notable differences between some of our findings on revealed preference and those of Blanco, et al. We find that revealed advantageous inequality aversion is often stronger than revealed dis-advantageous inequality aversion. In most subject pools, we find some (weak) correlation between corresponding parameters of stated and revealed inequality aversion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Benjamin Beranek
- Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, Sir Clive Granger Building, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD
| | - Robin Cubitt
- Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, Sir Clive Granger Building, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD
| | - Simon Gächter
- Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, Sir Clive Granger Building, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD
- CESifo, IZA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Gächter S, Starmer C, Tufano F. Measuring the Closeness of Relationships: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the 'Inclusion of the Other in the Self' Scale. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0129478. [PMID: 26068873 PMCID: PMC4466912 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129478] [Citation(s) in RCA: 86] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2015] [Accepted: 05/09/2015] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Understanding the nature and influence of social relationships is of increasing interest to behavioral economists, and behavioral scientists more generally. In turn, this creates a need for tractable, and reliable, tools for measuring fundamental aspects of social relationships. We provide a comprehensive evaluation of the 'Inclusion of the Other in the Self' (IOS) Scale, a handy pictorial tool for measuring the subjectively perceived closeness of a relationship. The tool is highly portable, very easy for subjects to understand and takes less than 1 minute to administer. Across our three online studies with a diverse adult population (n = 772) we show that six different scales designed to measure relationship closeness are all highly significantly positively correlated with the IOS Scale. We then conduct a Principal Component Analysis to construct an Index of Relationship Closeness and find that it correlates very strongly (ρ = 85) with the IOS Scale. We conclude that the IOS Scale is a psychologically meaningful and highly reliable measure of the subjective closeness of relationships.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Gächter
- Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, United Kingdom
- CESifo Network, Munich, Germany
- IZA Network, Bonn, Germany
- * E-mail:
| | - Chris Starmer
- Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Fabio Tufano
- Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Abstract
We compare social preference and social norm based explanations for peer effects in a three-person gift-exchange experiment. In the experiment a principal pays a wage to each of two agents, who then make effort choices sequentially. In our baseline treatment we observe that the second agent's effort is influenced by the effort choice of the first agent, even though there are no material spillovers between agents. This peer effect is predicted by the Fehr-Schmidt (1999) model of social preferences. As we show from a norms-elicitation experiment, it is also consistent with social norms compliance. A conditional logit investigation of the explanatory power of payoff inequality and elicited norms finds that the second agent's effort is best explained by the social preferences model. In further experiments we find that the peer effects change as predicted by the social preferences model. Again, a conditional logit analysis favors an explanation based on social preferences, rather than social norms. Our results suggest that, in our context, the social preferences model provides a parsimonious explanation for the observed peer effect.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Gächter
- University of Nottingham. School of Economics, Sir Clive Granger Building, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom
- CESifo and IZA
| | - Daniele Nosenzo
- University of Nottingham. School of Economics, Sir Clive Granger Building, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom
| | - Martin Sefton
- University of Nottingham. School of Economics, Sir Clive Granger Building, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
|
16
|
|
17
|
Abstract
Does the cultural background influence the success with which genetically unrelated individuals cooperate in social dilemma situations? In this paper, we provide an answer by analysing the data of Herrmann et al. (2008a), who studied cooperation and punishment in 16 subject pools from six different world cultures (as classified by Inglehart & Baker (2000)). We use analysis of variance to disentangle the importance of cultural background relative to individual heterogeneity and group-level differences in cooperation. We find that culture has a substantial influence on the extent of cooperation, in addition to individual heterogeneity and group-level differences identified by previous research. The significance of this result is that cultural background has a substantial influence on cooperation in otherwise identical environments. This is particularly true in the presence of punishment opportunities.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Gächter
- Centre of Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Gächter S, Herrmann B. Reciprocity, culture and human cooperation: previous insights and a new cross-cultural experiment. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2009; 364:791-806. [PMID: 19073476 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0275] [Citation(s) in RCA: 135] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Understanding the proximate and ultimate sources of human cooperation is a fundamental issue in all behavioural sciences. In this paper, we review the experimental evidence on how people solve cooperation problems. Existing studies show without doubt that direct and indirect reciprocity are important determinants of successful cooperation. We also discuss the insights from a large literature on the role of peer punishment in sustaining cooperation. The experiments demonstrate that many people are 'strong reciprocators' who are willing to cooperate and punish others even if there are no gains from future cooperation or any other reputational gains. We document this in new one-shot experiments, which we conducted in four cities in Russia and Switzerland. Our cross-cultural approach allows us furthermore to investigate how the cultural background influences strong reciprocity. Our results show that culture has a strong influence on positive and in especially strong negative reciprocity. In particular, we find large cross-cultural differences in 'antisocial punishment' of pro-social cooperators. Further cross-cultural research and experiments involving different socio-demographic groups document that the antisocial punishment is much more widespread than previously assumed. Understanding antisocial punishment is an important task for future research because antisocial punishment is a strong inhibitor of cooperation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Gächter
- Centre of Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK.
| | | |
Collapse
|
19
|
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Gächter
- Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, University of Nottingham, School of Economics, Sir Clive Granger Building, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Affiliation(s)
- Benedikt Herrmann
- Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, University of Nottingham, School of Economics, Sir Clive Granger Building, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Abstract
Human cooperation is an evolutionary puzzle. Unlike other creatures, people frequently cooperate with genetically unrelated strangers, often in large groups, with people they will never meet again, and when reputation gains are small or absent. These patterns of cooperation cannot be explained by the nepotistic motives associated with the evolutionary theory of kin selection and the selfish motives associated with signalling theory or the theory of reciprocal altruism. Here we show experimentally that the altruistic punishment of defectors is a key motive for the explanation of cooperation. Altruistic punishment means that individuals punish, although the punishment is costly for them and yields no material gain. We show that cooperation flourishes if altruistic punishment is possible, and breaks down if it is ruled out. The evidence indicates that negative emotions towards defectors are the proximate mechanism behind altruistic punishment. These results suggest that future study of the evolution of human cooperation should include a strong focus on explaining altruistic punishment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ernst Fehr
- University of Zürich, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, Blümlisalpstrasse 10, CH-8006 Zürich, Switzerland.
| | | |
Collapse
|