People making deontological judgments in the Trapdoor dilemma are perceived to be more prosocial in economic games than they actually are

Capraro, Valerio; Sippel, Jonathan; Zhao, Baoyu; Hornischer, Levin; Savary, Morgan; Terzopoulou, Zoi; Faucher, Pierre; Griffioen, Simone F.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0205066

Cited by 27 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A potential basis for this difference could be rooted in the fact that the prosociality of deontological decisions is based in rule adherence. Deontological tendencies may thus not signal benevolence as effectively explicit descriptions of a person's genuine interest in helping others irrespective of social rules (Capraro et al, 2018). Future research would benefit from specifically identifying which aspect of care is specifically desirable in STM and LTM.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary evidence for virtue as a cue to long-term mate value

Brown

Westrich

Bates

et al. 2020

Personality and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Selecting a long-term romantic partner is largely contingent upon identifying behavioral repertoires indicating an ability to foster individual and communal flourishing through benevolence and relational fidelity. Within this suite of socially desirable traits are virtues that could be critical in selecting long-term mates. The current program of research presents two studies investigating the extent people select mates embodying virtue. Study 1 tasked participants with indicating the desirability of prospective mates espousing high and low levels of the three fundamental virtues, as observed through the VIA Model: caring, self-control, and inquisitiveness. High levels of virtue were especially desirable for long-term mating, with the preference for self-control being largest. Study 2 considered dispositional preferences for long-term mating, as indexed through restricted sociosexuality, with sociosexually restricted individuals reporting aversion to prospective mates exhibiting low self-control. We frame results through an evolutionary context and recommend future research to understand the adaptive function of virtue.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary evidence for virtue as a cue to long-term mate value

Brown

Westrich

Bates

et al. 2020

Personality and Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Future research should explore whether third-party compensation is indeed an honest signal of trustworthiness or, instead, whether this perception is inaccurate (see e.g. Capraro et al, 2018). It is also noteworthy that, although participants trusted compensators more than any other third-party actor, when provided with a larger choice set of how to respond as a third-party, most participants did not choose to compensate but rather chose to do nothing (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reputational and cooperative benefits of third-party compensation

Patil¹,

Dhaliwal²,

Cushman³

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sometimes people intervene in others’ conflicts—so called “third-party responding”. In some cases, third parties punish perpetrators; in others, they aid victims. Across 22 studies (N > 20,000), we provide a comprehensive examination of the consequences of this choice between punishment and compensation. What do people infer from, and how do they respond to, the choice of punishment versus compensation? We find that compensating victims leads to greater reputational and cooperative benefits than punishing perpetrators. In fact, even people who themselves prefer to punish still prefer social partners who compensate. We also find that the signal that is sent via third-party compensating may be an honest signal of trustworthiness. Furthermore, we find that people accurately anticipate that observers would prefer them to compensate victims than to punish perpetrators and that participants personal decisions about whether to compensate or punish is based in part on the belief that the social norm is to compensate. These findings provide an extensive analysis of the causes and consequences of third-party responding to moral violations.

show abstract

“…If a participant failed to answer any one of the comprehension questions correctly, they were not allowed to proceed with the experiment. This stringent criterion is commonly used in economic games to ensure that all participants who take part in the experiment fully understand how the game works (Capraro et al, 2018). Additionally, participants who took unusually short or long amounts of time to complete the task (z scores for duration ≥ 3) were also removed on the assumption that they had not devoted full and undivided attention to the task.…”

Section: Exclusion Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A few recent studies have explored this question within the domain third-party punishing (Jordan, Hoffman, Bloom, & Rand, 2016) as well as within the domain of moral dilemma judgments (Capraro et al, 2018). As it turns out, third-party punishers both appear more trustworthy and are more trustworthy than those who choose to not intervene (Jordan, Hoffman, Bloom, & Rand, 2016).…”

Section: Part 5: Is Compensation An Honest Signal Of Trustworthiness?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reputational and cooperative benefits of third-party compensation

Dhaliwal

Patil

Cushman

2021

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although third-party punishment helps sustain group cooperation, might victim compensation provide third-parties with superior reputational benefits? Across 24 studies (N = 21,296), we provide a comprehensive examination of the consequences of the choice between punishment and compensation. What do people infer from, and how do they respond to, the choice of punishment versus compensation? Across various contexts ranging from economic games, to workplace injustice, to people's own personal experience of witnessing third-party responses in their daily lives, we find that compensating victims leads to greater reputational and partner choice benefits relative to punishing perpetrators. In fact, even people who themselves prefer to punish still prefer social partners who compensate. We also find that the signal that is sent via third-party compensating is an honest signal-people who choose to compensate rather than punish score lower on measures of trait Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. Furthermore, we find that the personal decision of whether to compensate or punish is influenced by both injunctive and descriptive norms. These findings provide an extensive analysis of the causes and consequences of third-party responding to moral violations.

show abstract

People making deontological judgments in the Trapdoor dilemma are perceived to be more prosocial in economic games than they actually are

Cited by 27 publications

References 75 publications

Preliminary evidence for virtue as a cue to long-term mate value

Preliminary evidence for virtue as a cue to long-term mate value

Reputational and cooperative benefits of third-party compensation

Reputational and cooperative benefits of third-party compensation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About