Private and Public Decisions in Social Dilemmas: Evidence from Children’s Behavior

Abstract

Are selfish impulses less likely to be pursued when decisions are publicly observable? Is the presence of peers a potential solution to social dilemmas? In this paper we report data on the self-control decisions of children aged 6 to 11 who participated in games that require one to resist a selfish impulse for several minutes in order to benefit others. In Public Condition children make decisions in public view of the group of other participants, while in Private Condition they have the possibility to decide privately. We find that children aged 9 and higher are better able to resist selfish impulses in public environments. Younger children, however, display no such effect. Further, we find self-control substantially impacted by group size. When decisions are public, self-control is better in larger groups, while in private condition the opposite holds.

The development of the effect of peer monitoring on generosity differs among elementary school-age boys and girls

“…Although Houser et al (2012) did not investigate sex differences in peer monitoring effects in children, our study clearly showed significant differences between boys and girls. This discrepancy may be explained by the different games; while the DG was used in our study to measure children’s generosity, a modified social dilemma game that involved waiting for a reward was used in Houser et al (2012) ’s study. The latter study did not measure children’s generosity per se , but rather their endurance ( Curry et al, 2008 ) and general trust ( Yamagishi, 1988 ).…”

“…Consistent with this interpretation, Houser et al (2012) demonstrated a peer monitoring effect on contributions to group members using a modified social dilemma game in children 9 years and older. Although Houser et al (2012) did not investigate sex differences in peer monitoring effects in children, our study clearly showed significant differences between boys and girls. This discrepancy may be explained by the different games; while the DG was used in our study to measure children’s generosity, a modified social dilemma game that involved waiting for a reward was used in Houser et al (2012) ’s study.…”

“…Thus, sensitivity to peer monitoring requires the development of higher order ToM. Consistent with this interpretation, Houser et al (2012) demonstrated a peer monitoring effect on contributions to group members using a modified social dilemma game in children 9 years and older. Although Houser et al (2012) did not investigate sex differences in peer monitoring effects in children, our study clearly showed significant differences between boys and girls.…”

“…Consistent with these findings, a number of studies have shown that people tend to behave in a more generous and pro-social manner when they are being observed by others. This tendency occurs not only in adults ( Bereczkei et al, 2007 ; Iredale et al, 2008 ; Izuma et al, 2010 ; Van Vugt and Iredale, 2013 ) but also in children ( Engelmann et al, 2012 , 2013 ; Houser et al, 2012 ; Leimgruber et al, 2012 ; Fujii et al, 2015 ). The tendency for people to behave in a more pro-social manner when they are observed by others, and thus may accrue reputation, is so strong that it can be elicited even by subtle cues of monitoring such as pictures of eyes ( Haley and Fessler, 2005 ; Bateson et al, 2006 ; Mifune et al, 2010 ; Keller and Pfattheicher, 2011 ; Oda et al, 2011 ; Ekström, 2012 ; Nettle et al, 2013 ) and even three dots in a “watching eyes” configuration ( Rigdon et al, 2009 ).…”

Prosocial norms in the classroom: The role of self-regulation in following norms of giving

“…In each of the grades we were testing, silly bandz proved popular (www.sillybandz.com). Several studies have now also used this resource in different economic games with children (e.g., Houser et al, 2012;Maggian & Villeval, 2013, Chen et al 2014Devetag et al, 2013). After running our study, we evaluated the desirability of silly bandz at different ages by comparing the percentage of children who gave all of the items away (max of 4).…”