Reciprocity as an Individual Difference

Abstract

There is accumulating evidence that decision makers are sensitive to the distribution of resources among themselves and others, beyond what is expected from the predictions of narrow selfinterest. These social preferences are typically conceptualized as being static and existing independently of information about the other people influenced by a DM's allocation choices. In this paper we consider the reactivity of a decision makers's social preferences in response to information about the intentions or past behavior of the person to be affected by the decision maker's allocation choices (i.e., how do social preferences change in relation to the other's type). This paper offers a conceptual framework for characterizing the link between distributive preferences and reciprocity, and reports on experiments in which these two constructs are disentangled and the relation between the two is characterized.

PREPRINT Inspired to lend a hand? Attempts to elicit prosocial behavior through goal contagion

“…Furthermore, the present research contributed to the recently emphasized difficulties of distinguishing SVO as state or trait concept (Ackermann et al, 2016, Pulford et al, 2016 by demonstrating that SVO has only been predictive for prosocial behavior when it was directly measured before the experimental part. In this regard, SVO might not have been the most adequate choice for a dispositional moderator, despite other research treating and discussing it as such (e.g., Bogaert et al, 2008;van Lange, 2000).…”

“…This happened after the participants' SVO was assessed and before they were confronted with an unrelated Contagion of Prosocial Behavior 10 situation aimed at measuring their prosocial behavior. We measured SVO beforehand to avoid having the SVO score being influenced by the goal contagion manipulation (see Ackermann et al, 2016, Pulford et al, 2016.…”

Norma pessoal de reciprocidade: evidências de validade e precisão de uma medida

“…Nessa direção, é possível afirmar que o QNPR se apresenta como uma ferramenta importante para a mensuração da reciprocidade, possibilitando mensurar adequadamente como as pessoas diferem em relação à essa norma, já que alguns indivíduos podem ser extremamente recíprocos, enquanto outros o são em menor medida (Perugini et al, 2003). Tais diferenças são importantes porque a reciprocidade também pode se apresentar como uma forma de comportamento pró-social em sua forma positiva, visto que existem evidências sugerindo que pessoas com preferências pró-sociais têm maior propensão a retribuir uma interação pró-social de um parceiro do que aquelas mais individualistas (Ackermann et al, 2014).…”

“…No caso, a norma de reciprocidade positiva afirma que as pessoas devem ajudar ou recompensar aquelas que as prestaram um favor ou cooperaram anteriormente (Perugini & Galucci, 2001). Esse tipo de reciprocidade reflete um comportamento pró-social, sugerindo que pessoas com preferências pró-sociais são mais suscetíveis ao comportamento recíproco correspondente ao do parceiro de interação, quando comparadas àquelas mais individualistas (Ackermann, Fleiß, & Murphy, 2014). Com relação à reciprocidade negativa, aqueles que endossam essa norma agem de modo a, percebendo tratamento desconsiderado de alguém, considerar aceitável proceder à retaliação (Restubog, Garcia, Wang, & Cheng, 2010).…”

Towards representing human behavior and decision making in Earth system models – an overview of techniques and approaches

“…Stable preferences are included to prevent researchers from developing trivial explanations, as a theory that models a given change in behavior only based on changed preferences does not have explanatory power. However, empirical research shows that preferences can change even in relatively short time frames (Ackermann et al, 2016). Changing individuals' goals or preferences is an important mechanism to affect their behavior, for example through policies, making flexible preferences particularly interesting for Earth system modelers.…”