160 likes | 257 Views
Public Charity as a Proximate Factor of Evolved Reputation- Building Strategy. Brittany and Bo. Introduction. One of the key questions in evolutionary psych and biology is why individuals help strangers without the possibility of return
E N D
Public Charity as a Proximate Factor of Evolved Reputation- Building Strategy Brittany and Bo
Introduction • One of the key questions in evolutionary psych and biology is why individuals help strangers without the possibility of return • Norwak and Sigmund 1998: Cooperation pays, presents the cooperative individual as valuable • Wedekind and Braithwaite 2002: Altruistic acts may enhance the altruist’s status and reputation in his/her social group
Introduction- Previous Research • Barclay 2004: Computer simulation and experimental games • Players showed a strong preference to give to those who had previously been generous in other transactions • Milinksi et al., 2002: Donations deeply influence the social attitude of in group members towards the altruist • Signal of individuals propensity to cooperate
Introduction • Bereczkei et al., 2007: altruistic acts in a naturalistic, real-life situation • Interested in what environmental and psychological factors evoke altruism • Specifically reputation enhancement through conscious choice, or indirect result of norm adherence and/or prosocial personality traits. • Hypothesis: the degree of publicity will be a measurable determinant on an individual’s willingness to do altruistic acts
Methods- Participants • 214 subjects (129 female, 85 male) • Medical School students, volunteers • Were already in study seminar groups (18 groups of 8-14 members) • They knew each other but not well
Methods- Tests • Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) • Measured social cooperation skills (ex. Empathy) • Mach-IV Scale • “Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so.” • California Psychological Inventory • Everyday traits (ex. Dominant, cooperative, helpful) • Sociometry • Had them name the 3 people they liked/respected the most • Also had a 6 item survey (appendix A)
Methods- Procedure • Participants are presented the chance to do the charity in two ways: • Publically: They went to the front of the class and announced their intentions (announced the date and type of activity they wanted to participate in) • Privately: They were given a sheet to fill out (privately) stating whether they wanted to give their time
Methods- Procedure • Phase 1: Take the 4 tests • Phase 2: • 4-6 weeks later • An offer to participate in several charitable activities (give blood, provide for the elderly, etc.) is presented in the seminar group • 7 activities on the sheet, 3-4 hours to complete, participants could mark as many as they wanted to do • Participants specified a set date to complete the charity by
Methods- Phase 3 and 4 • Phase 3: Participants given the sociometry test immediately after the charity offer (which 3 people do you like/respect the most) • Participants did not link the phases of the test together (only 4.2% recognized the tests were connected to the charity representative, self report) • Phase 4: Participants were allowed to follow through with their charity pledges
Results- Charity Offer • Nearly 40% (84/214) subjects were willing to volunteer • Publicity has profound effect on generosity towards strangers (χ²= 17.95, p<.001)
Results- Reputation • Strong correlation between the first sociometric measure and the second (Pearson=.77) • Significant relationship between publicly made charity offers and increase in reputation • This was found exclusively in the public charity offer group
Results- Regression analysis: personality and behavioral correlates of generosity • Publicity had large positive effects on the likelihood of a charity offer • Empathy and Compassion (TCI test) proved to be predictive • Women • Machiavellianism negatively associated with altruism- the higher the score in Mach-IV test, the lower the likelihood of volunteering • Community (conformity, CPI test) slightly affects charity offer, but not profoundly.
Results- Regression analysis: personality and behavioral correlates of generosity Eq 1- Causal effect of publicity Eq 2- personality dimensions Eq 3- sex Eq 4- Machiavellianism Eq 5- variables concerning adherence to social norms
Discussion- Implications • Giving to charity may be paid off in the long run by increased reputation • Machiavellianism might be an alternate strategy • We have a mechanism to recognize if people are watching and a mechanism to watch other people
Discussion- Confounds • More subjects were willing to give when they had the chance to make it public they were giving • Peer pressure effect? • Barrier to volunteer is different • How private was the private survey? • Personality tests all self report and on Likert scales
Discussion- Future Studies • Does gender of your peers matter? • Cross cultural study • Private and Public offers could be more similar in their barriers to entry (not requiring people to stand up) • Eliminating the peer pressure effect; everybody could volunteer at once