Be nice
Increasing generosity by disrupting prefrontal cortex
Leonardo Christov-Moore et al.
Social Neuroscience, March/April 2017, Pages 174-181
Abstract:
Recent research suggests that prosocial outcomes in sharing games arise from prefrontal control of self-maximizing impulses. We used continuous theta burst stimulation (cTBS) to disrupt the functioning of two prefrontal areas, the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC). We used cTBS in the right MT/V5, as a control area. We then tested subjects' prosocial inclinations with an unsupervised Dictator Game in which they allocated real money anonymously between themselves and low and high socioeconomic status (SES) players. cTBS over the two prefrontal sites made subjects more generous compared to MT/V5. More specifically, cTBS over DLPFC increased offers to high-SES players, while cTBS over DMPFC caused increased offers to low-SES players. These data, the first to demonstrate an effect of disruptive neuromodulation on costly sharing, suggest that DLPFC and MPFC exert inhibitory control over prosocial inclinations during costly sharing, though they may do so in different ways. DLPFC may implement contextual control, while DMPFC may implement a tonic form of control. This study demonstrates that humans' prepotent inclination is toward prosocial outcomes when cognitive control is reduced, even when prosocial decisions carry no strategic benefit and concerns for reputation are minimized.
---------------------
Empathy is a Choice: People are Empathy Misers Because They are Cognitive Misers
Daryl Cameron et al.
Pennsylvania State University Working Paper, December 2016
Abstract:
Empathy is considered a core virtue, yet fails in many situations. Understanding empathy lapses addresses a basic question about pro-sociality: to what extent do people choose to avoid empathy? Answering this question informs debates over the automaticity of empathy, and in particular, experience sharing: our tendency to resonate with the experiences of others. Experience sharing is often assumed to be effortless and automatic; here, we suggest that people perceive experience sharing to be effortful, aversive, and difficult, and avoid it for that reason. We develop a new measure of empathy regulation behavior called the Empathy Selection Task. In this task, participants make a series of binary choices, selecting into situations that instruct them to engage in empathy or an alternative course of action. Across 19 studies (N = 2,174) we find strong and replicable empathy avoidance, which is associated with perceiving empathy as effortful, aversive, and inefficacious. People avoid sharing in both negative and positive experiences of others, and empathy avoidance is not reducible to emotion avoidance. People subjectively devalue empathy, requiring higher financial compensation to empathize in an Empathy Discounting Paradigm, and empathy avoidance reduces when the alternative to empathy is comparably effortful. Finally, experimentally increasing perceived efficacy at empathizing eliminates avoidance of experience sharing, suggesting that psychological costs directly cause empathy regulation. These results qualify claims that empathy is a default, and that empathy limits are fixed rather than chosen. When given the choice to share in others' feelings, people act as if it's not worth the effort.
---------------------
Signaling Virtue: Charitable Behavior Under Consumer Elective Pricing
Minah Jung et al.
Marketing Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
Two field experiments examined generosity under consumer elective pricing. In shared social responsibility (SSR), consumers choose how much to pay, knowing that a percentage of their payment goes to support a charitable cause. Replicating past research, consumers in our experiments were sensitive to the presence of charitable giving, paying more when a portion of their payment went to charity. Notably, however, they were largely insensitive to the percentage of payment allocated to charity - customers paid little more when 99% of the payment went to charity than when only 1% went to charity. Neither self-selection nor social pressure fully explained higher payments under SSR.
---------------------
Power Distance Belief, Power, and Charitable Giving
Dahee Han, Ashok Lalwani & Adam Duhachek
Journal of Consumer Research, forthcoming
Abstract:
Three studies examined the relation between power distance belief (PDB), the tendency to accept and expect inequalities in society; power, the control one has over valued resources; and charitable giving. Results suggested that the effect of PDB depends on the power held by the donor. In low-PDB contexts, people high (vs. low) in psychological power tend to be more self-focused (vs. other-focused), and this leads them to be less charitable. In high-PDB contexts, however, people high (vs. low) in psychological power tend to be more other-focused (vs. self-focused), and this leads them to be more charitable. The authors also explore several boundary conditions for these relationships and conclude with the implications of these findings.