English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Poster

Human prosociality in the lab: The structure of prosocial behavior assessed with economic games and self-reports

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons71667

Böckler,  Anne
Department Social Neuroscience, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons20056

Tusche,  Anita
Department Social Neuroscience, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons20000

Singer,  Tania
Department Social Neuroscience, MPI for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts stored in PuRe
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Böckler, A., Tusche, A., & Singer, T. (2014). Human prosociality in the lab: The structure of prosocial behavior assessed with economic games and self-reports. Poster presented at Inaugural Conference of the Society for Affective Science (SAS), Bethesda, MD, USA.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-002B-279C-5
Abstract
Though prosocial behavior is crucial for societies to function its reliable scientific assessment in the lab is still a challenge. The present study integrated paradigms from diverse disciplines in order to identify the overall structure and sub-components of prosociality. To this end, participants (N=187) played anonymous one-shot versions of economic games such as the Dictator Game, the Trust Game, and the 2nd and 3rd Person Punishment Game, engaged in the Zürich Prosocial Game, completed a donation as well as social discounting task and filled in trait questionnaires typically employed to assess prosociality. Results of a factor analyses identified four independent factors: a factor ‘Prosocial Motivation’ comprises behaviors as diverse as helping, generosity, donations to NGOs, favoring equal distributions, and trust. Factor 2 ‘Readiness to punish’ reflects the inclination to punish violations of distribution norms and choose monetary distributions independent of social distance. Factor 3 ‘Strategizing’ describes the tendency to make decisions dependent on cost-benefit analyses. Finally, factor 4 “Self-Report Measures” is determined by the method of using trait questionnaires and reflects people’s personal view on their own prosociality. These findings reveal a more differentiated picture of human prosociality involving meaningful sub-components, one of them being clearly determined by the underlying methods. Such findings may have important implications for research on the determinants of prosociality ranging from genetics to development and plasticity research.