In Search of <i>Homo economicus</i>

Yamagishi, Toshio; Li, Yang; Takagishi, Haruto; Matsumoto, Yoshiharu; Kiyonari, Toko

doi:10.1177/0956797614538065

Cited by 99 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our perspective suggests that investigations of income and generosity will yield different results depending on the geographical areas where they are conducted. Accordingly, our research helps explain why studies conducted in one of the most unequal US states, California (6), found negative associations between income and generosity (e.g., participants with higher income gave fewer resources and were less helpful to others) (3), whereas studies conducted in less unequal areas (the Netherlands, Germany, and Japan) (13)(14)(15) found no such associations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…In contrast, recent investigations conducted in the Netherlands and Germany, where there is considerably less inequality (6), found no association and a positive association, respectively, between income and how much participants in a "trust game" reciprocated the cooperative behavior of their partner (13,14). Furthermore, a study conducted in Japan, where inequality is also relatively low (6), found no association between a composite of income and related status indicators and giving behavior in dictator games (15). Although these findings suggest that a negative relation between income and generosity might emerge only under conditions of high inequality, whether the extent of inequality modifies the incomegenerosity link has never been systematically tested.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

High economic inequality leads higher-income individuals to be less generous

Côté

House

Willer

2015

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

238

250

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on social class and generosity suggests that higherincome individuals are less generous than poorer individuals. We propose that this pattern emerges only under conditions of high economic inequality, contexts that can foster a sense of entitlement among higher-income individuals that, in turn, reduces their generosity. Analyzing results of a unique nationally representative survey that included a real-stakes giving opportunity (n = 1,498), we found that in the most unequal US states, higher-income respondents were less generous than lower-income respondents. In the least unequal states, however, higher-income individuals were more generous. To better establish causality, we next conducted an experiment (n = 704) in which apparent levels of economic inequality in participants' home states were portrayed as either relatively high or low. Participants were then presented with a giving opportunity. Higher-income participants were less generous than lower-income participants when inequality was portrayed as relatively high, but there was no association between income and generosity when inequality was portrayed as relatively low. This research finds that the tendency for higher-income individuals to be less generous pertains only when inequality is high, challenging the view that higherincome individuals are necessarily more selfish, and suggesting a previously undocumented way in which inequitable resource distributions undermine collective welfare.inequality | income | generosity

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

High economic inequality leads higher-income individuals to be less generous

Côté

House

Willer

2015

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

238

250

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In line with this prediction, little consistent association has been found between an individual's cognitive style and their overall willingness to cooperate in one-shot games (4,43,44). Furthermore, individual differences in reaction times, which are often interpreted as a proxy for intuitiveness (although see refs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation

Bear

Rand

2016

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

277

239

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans often cooperate with strangers, despite the costs involved. A long tradition of theoretical modeling has sought ultimate evolutionary explanations for this seemingly altruistic behavior. More recently, an entirely separate body of experimental work has begun to investigate cooperation's proximate cognitive underpinnings using a dualprocess framework: Is deliberative self-control necessary to reign in selfish impulses, or does self-interested deliberation restrain an intuitive desire to cooperate? Integrating these ultimate and proximate approaches, we introduce dual-process cognition into a formal gametheoretic model of the evolution of cooperation. Agents play prisoner's dilemma games, some of which are one-shot and others of which involve reciprocity. They can either respond by using a generalized intuition, which is not sensitive to whether the game is oneshot or reciprocal, or pay a (stochastically varying) cost to deliberate and tailor their strategy to the type of game they are facing. We find that, depending on the level of reciprocity and assortment, selection favors one of two strategies: intuitive defectors who never deliberate, or dual-process agents who intuitively cooperate but sometimes use deliberation to defect in one-shot games. Critically, selection never favors agents who use deliberation to override selfish impulses: Deliberation only serves to undermine cooperation with strangers. Thus, by introducing a formal theoretical framework for exploring cooperation through a dual-process lens, we provide a clear answer regarding the role of deliberation in cooperation based on evolutionary modeling, help to organize a growing body of sometimesconflicting empirical results, and shed light on the nature of human cognition and social decision making.dual process | cooperation | evolutionary game theory | prisoner's dilemma | heuristics C ooperation, where people pay costs to benefit others, is a defining feature of human social interaction. However, our willingness to cooperate is puzzling because of the individual costs that cooperation entails. Explaining how the "selfish" process of evolution could have given rise to seemingly altruistic cooperation has been a major focus of research across the natural and social sciences for decades. Using the tools of evolutionary game theory, great progress has been made in identifying mechanisms by which selection can favor cooperative strategies, providing ultimate explanations for the widespread cooperation observed in human societies (1).In recent years, the proximate cognitive mechanisms underpinning human cooperation have also begun to receive widespread attention. For example, a wide range of experimental evidence suggests that emotion and intuition play a key role in motivating cooperation (2-5). The dual-process perspective on decision making (6-8) offers a powerful framework for integrating these observations. In the dual-process framework, decisions are conceptualized as arising from competition between two types of cognitive processes: (i) auto...

show abstract

“…However, cultural differences in otherishness may depend on who the "other" is. People in collectivist cultures may be more otherish toward ingroup members but less otherish toward outgroup members (Yamagishi et al 2014). We also know little about cultural differences in the costs and benefits of selfishness and otherishness.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Motivation: Costs and Benefits of Selfishness and Otherishness

Crocker

Canevello

Brown

2017

Annu. Rev. Psychol.

139

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine recent evidence on the consequences of selfishness and otherishness for psychological well-being, physical health, and relationships. In the first sections, we consider recent evidence regarding the costs and benefits of giving time, money, and support to others and the costs and benefits of taking or receiving those things from others. Then, because the behaviors of giving and taking can be motivated either by selfish or otherish concerns, we next consider the costs and benefits of the motivation underlying giving and taking. We also examine why and for whom selfishness and otherishness have consequences for psychological well-being, physical health, and relationships. We focus on mechanisms identified in research, including intrapsychic mechanisms such as positive and negative affect, self-esteem and self-efficacy, a sense of meaning and purpose in life, and a sense of connectedness to or isolation from others, as well as interpersonal processes such as reciprocation of support and responsiveness.

show abstract

In Search of Homo economicus

Cited by 99 publications

References 23 publications

High economic inequality leads higher-income individuals to be less generous

High economic inequality leads higher-income individuals to be less generous

Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation

Social Motivation: Costs and Benefits of Selfishness and Otherishness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About