Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

18
128
3

Year Published

2013
2013
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 229 publications
references
References 32 publications
18
128
3
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, a poster showing a pair of eyes lead to more prosocial behaviour (paying for drinks or tidying up) compared to a poster of flowers (Bateson et al 2006; Ernest-Jones et al 2011). In economic games, adding images of eyes or even stylised eyes to the screen background can lead to more sharing in a dictator game (Haley and Fessler 2005; Oda et al 2011) and stronger in-group favouritism (Mifune et al 2010).…”
Section: The Audience Effect In Typical Populationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, a poster showing a pair of eyes lead to more prosocial behaviour (paying for drinks or tidying up) compared to a poster of flowers (Bateson et al 2006; Ernest-Jones et al 2011). In economic games, adding images of eyes or even stylised eyes to the screen background can lead to more sharing in a dictator game (Haley and Fessler 2005; Oda et al 2011) and stronger in-group favouritism (Mifune et al 2010).…”
Section: The Audience Effect In Typical Populationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pictures of faces, rather than eyes, have not been shown to increase prosociality in a dictator game [7], yet a schematic of a face made of three monochrome dots does increase prosociality [14]. Finally, field studies have shown that the effect of eyes on prosociality is stronger when fewer people are in the environment [15,17,21,22]. These results, therefore, suggest that the effect of monitoring cues is to some extent dependent on the characteristics of the environment and the specific watching stimuli used.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prior to role assignment for the second round, subjects were informed that there would be no third party in round 2 (to avoid potential audience effects [22,34]); one player would be assigned to a different task and be unable to see the results of the interaction. We note that the presence of the experimenter can also induce audience effects [22]; we took great care to minimize this potential influence by (i) clearly informing participants during the consent process that their data would be stored completely anonymously and could not be connected to them in any way, and (ii) minimizing contact with the experimenter by presenting all instructions electronically.…”
Section: (B) Procedures (I) Experimentsmentioning
confidence: 99%