Eyes are on us, but nobody cares: are eye cues relevant for strong reciprocity?

Fehr, Ernst; Schneider, Frédéric

doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1900

Cited by 121 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

102

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[28,29]; cf. [30]). Some authors have suggested that such cues match the input conditions for evolved mental mechanisms that detect when one's behaviour is observed [28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wrath of God: religious primes and punishment

et al. 2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent evidence indicates that priming participants with religious concepts promotes prosocial sharing behaviour. In the present study, we investigated whether religious priming also promotes the costly punishment of unfair behaviour. A total of 304 participants played a punishment game. Before the punishment stage began, participants were subliminally primed with religion primes, secular punishment primes or control primes. We found that religious primes strongly increased the costly punishment of unfair behaviours for a subset of our participants-those who had previously donated to a religious organization. We discuss two proximate mechanisms potentially underpinning this effect. The first is a 'supernatural watcher' mechanism, whereby religious participants punish unfair behaviours when primed because they sense that not doing so will enrage or disappoint an observing supernatural agent. The second is a 'behavioural priming' mechanism, whereby religious primes activate cultural norms pertaining to fairness and its enforcement and occasion behaviour consistent with those norms. We conclude that our results are consistent with dual inheritance proposals about religion and cooperation, whereby religions harness the byproducts of genetically inherited cognitive mechanisms in ways that enhance the survival prospects of their adherents.

show abstract

“…[28,29]; cf. [30]). Some authors have suggested that such cues match the input conditions for evolved mental mechanisms that detect when one's behaviour is observed [28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wrath of God: religious primes and punishment

et al. 2010

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, though many studies have provided evidence for the importance of payoff-irrelevant social cues (Haley and Fessler, 2005;Bateson et al, 2006;Burnham and Hare, 2007;Rigdon et al, 2009;Mifune et al, 2010;Ernest-Jones et al, 2011;Oda et al, 2011;Francey and Bergmüller, 2012), the evidence overall is mixed. Some studies have also failed to find an effect (Fehr and Schneider, 2010;Lamba and Mace, 2010;Carbon and Hesslinger, 2011;Tane and Takezawa, 2011;Ekström, 2012;Raihani and Bshary, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eye spots do not increase altruism in children

Vogt

Efferson

Berger

et al. 2015

Evolution and Human Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evolutionary legacy hypothesis proposes that an evolved reciprocity-based psychology affects human behavior in anonymous one-shot interactions when reciprocity is not explicitly possible. Empirical support rests on experiments showing that altruism among adults increases in the presence of stylized eye spots or faces. Such stimuli do not affect material payoffs, but they are assumed to activate a person's reciprocity-based psychology. We identify two versions of the evolutionary legacy hypothesis. The weak hypothesis posits that reputational concerns can generate altruism in the absence of opportunities for a good reputation. The strong hypothesis posits that reputational concerns alone can explain anonymous one-shot altruism, and they can do so specifically in lieu of explanations based on group selection. A number of experimental studies support the weak hypothesis but are merely consistent with the strong hypothesis. To address both the weak and strong hypotheses, we conducted an eye spot experiment with children. Altruism can vary by age or sex in childhood, and under the strong hypothesis this kind of variation should reveal associated variation in sensitivity to eye spots. Although we found significant variation in altruism among children, we found no corresponding variation in sensitivity to eye spots. More generally, we found no eye spot effects of any kind. We discuss the possibility that eye spots might only affect altruism under specific conditions. We further argue that conditional effects do not refute the weak hypothesis in any way, but they do suggest potential limitations on the explanatory scope of the strong hypothesis. 1 Abstract: The evolutionary legacy hypothesis proposes that an evolved reciprocitybased psychology affects human behavior in anonymous one-shot interactions when reciprocity is not explicitly possible. Empirical support rests on experiments showing that altruism among adults increases in the presence of stylized eye spots or faces. Such stimuli do not affect material payoffs, but they are assumed to activate a person's reciprocity-based psychology. We identify two versions of the evolutionary legacy hypothesis. The weak hypothesis posits that reputational concerns can generate altruism in the absence of opportunities for a good reputation. The strong hypothesis posits that reputational concerns alone can explain anonymous one-shot altruism, and they can do so specifically in lieu of a explanations based on group selection. A number of experimental studies support the weak hypothesis but are merely consistent with the strong hypothesis. To address both the weak and strong hypotheses, we conducted an eye spot experiment with children.Altruism can vary by age or sex in childhood, and under the strong hypothesis this kind of variation should reveal associated variation in sensitivity to eye spots.Although we found significant variation in altruism among children, we found no corresponding variation in sensitivity to eye spots. More generally, we found no eye spot effe...

show abstract

“…Fehr and Schneider (31) found that the stylized eyes that Haley and Fessler (25) used had no effect on the amount that Player 1 transferred in an anonymous trust game. In contrast, when players were told that their partners would be informed about the amount that they had transferred in previous rounds (but not their identity), transfer amounts doubled.…”

Section: Critiques Of Interpretation Of Behavioral Economics Gamesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary foundations of human prosocial sentiments

Silk

House²

2011

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

158

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing body of evidence shows that humans are remarkably altruistic primates. Food sharing and division of labor play an important role in all human societies, and cooperation extends beyond the bounds of close kinship and networks of reciprocating partners. In humans, altruism is motivated at least in part by empathy and concern for the welfare of others. Although altruistic behavior is well-documented in other primates, the range of altruistic behaviors in other primate species, including the great apes, is much more limited than it is in humans. Moreover, when altruism does occur among other primates, it is typically limited to familiar group members-close kin, mates, and reciprocating partners. This suggests that there may be fundamental differences in the social preferences that motivate altruism across the primate order, and there is currently considerable interest in how we came to be such unusual apes. A body of experimental studies designed to examine the phylogenetic range of prosocial sentiments and behavior is beginning to shed some light on this issue. In experimental settings, chimpanzees and tamarins do not consistently take advantage of opportunities to deliver food rewards to others, although capuchins and marmosets do deliver food rewards to others in similar kinds of tasks. Although chimpanzees do not satisfy experimental criteria for prosociality in food delivery tasks, they help others complete tasks to obtain a goal. Differences in performance across species and differences in performance across tasks are not yet fully understood and raise new questions for further study.prosocial preferences | punishment | fairness

show abstract

Eyes are on us, but nobody cares: are eye cues relevant for strong reciprocity?

Cited by 121 publications

References 42 publications

Wrath of God: religious primes and punishment

Wrath of God: religious primes and punishment

Eye spots do not increase altruism in children

Evolutionary foundations of human prosocial sentiments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About