Literature DB >> 28559334

Response time in economic games reflects different types of decision conflict for prosocial and proself individuals.

Toshio Yamagishi1,2, Yoshie Matsumoto2, Toko Kiyonari3, Haruto Takagishi2, Yang Li2, Ryota Kanai4, Masamichi Sakagami2.   

Abstract

Behavioral and neuroscientific studies explore two pathways through which internalized social norms promote prosocial behavior. One pathway involves internal control of impulsive selfishness, and the other involves emotion-based prosocial preferences that are translated into behavior when they evade cognitive control for pursuing self-interest. We measured 443 participants' overall prosocial behavior in four economic games. Participants' predispositions [social value orientation (SVO)] were more strongly reflected in their overall game behavior when they made decisions quickly than when they spent a longer time. Prosocially (or selfishly) predisposed participants behaved less prosocially (or less selfishly) when they spent more time in decision making, such that their SVO prosociality yielded limited effects in actual behavior in their slow decisions. The increase (or decrease) in slower decision makers was prominent among consistent prosocials (or proselfs) whose strong preference for prosocial (or proself) goals would make it less likely to experience conflict between prosocial and proself goals. The strong effect of RT on behavior in consistent prosocials (or proselfs) suggests that conflict between prosocial and selfish goals alone is not responsible for slow decisions. Specifically, we found that contemplation of the risk of being exploited by others (social risk aversion) was partly responsible for making consistent prosocials (but not consistent proselfs) spend longer time in decision making and behave less prosocially. Conflict between means rather than between goals (immediate versus strategic pursuit of self-interest) was suggested to be responsible for the time-related increase in consistent proselfs' prosocial behavior. The findings of this study are generally in favor of the intuitive cooperation model of prosocial behavior.

Entities:  

Keywords:  decision time; economic game; heuristic cooperation; prosocial behavior; social value orientation

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28559334      PMCID: PMC5474786          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1608877114

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  28 in total

1.  Cognitive Load and the Equality Heuristic: A Two-Stage Model of Resource Overconsumption in Small Groups.

Authors: 
Journal:  Organ Behav Hum Decis Process       Date:  2000-11

2.  Impulse control and underlying functions of the left DLPFC mediate age-related and age-independent individual differences in strategic social behavior.

Authors:  Nikolaus Steinbeis; Boris C Bernhardt; Tania Singer
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2012-03-08       Impact factor: 17.173

3.  Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: implications for affect, relationships, and well-being.

Authors:  James J Gross; Oliver P John
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2003-08

4.  Fast but not intuitive, slow but not reflective: Decision conflict drives reaction times in social dilemmas.

Authors:  Anthony M Evans; Kyle D Dillon; David G Rand
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2015-10

5.  Studying the neurobiology of social interaction with transcranial direct current stimulation--the example of punishing unfairness.

Authors:  Daria Knoch; Michael A Nitsche; Urs Fischbacher; Christoph Eisenegger; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Ernst Fehr
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2007-12-24       Impact factor: 5.357

6.  Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: theory and preliminary evidence.

Authors:  P A Van Lange; W Otten; E M De Bruin; J A Joireman
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1997-10

7.  Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation.

Authors:  David G Rand; Alexander Peysakhovich; Gordon T Kraft-Todd; George E Newman; Owen Wurzbacher; Martin A Nowak; Joshua D Greene
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 14.919

8.  Cooperation, Fast and Slow: Meta-Analytic Evidence for a Theory of Social Heuristics and Self-Interested Deliberation.

Authors:  David G Rand
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2016-07-15

9.  Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex.

Authors:  Daria Knoch; Alvaro Pascual-Leone; Kaspar Meyer; Valerie Treyer; Ernst Fehr
Journal:  Science       Date:  2006-10-05       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  Intuition, deliberation, and the evolution of cooperation.

Authors:  Adam Bear; David G Rand
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 12.779

View more
  10 in total

1.  Preference and strategy in proposer's prosocial giving in the ultimatum game.

Authors:  Misato Inaba; Yumi Inoue; Satoshi Akutsu; Nobuyuki Takahashi; Toshio Yamagishi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  A dual-fMRI investigation of the iterated Ultimatum Game reveals that reciprocal behaviour is associated with neural alignment.

Authors:  Daniel J Shaw; Kristína Czekóová; Rostislav Staněk; Radek Mareček; Tomáš Urbánek; Jiří Špalek; Lenka Kopečková; Jan Řezáč; Milan Brázdil
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-07-18       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Attentional priorities drive effects of time pressure on altruistic choice.

Authors:  Yi Yang Teoh; Ziqing Yao; William A Cunningham; Cendri A Hutcherson
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-07-15       Impact factor: 14.919

4.  Biased sequential sampling underlies the effects of time pressure and delay in social decision making.

Authors:  Fadong Chen; Ian Krajbich
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-09-03       Impact factor: 14.919

5.  Coevolution between the cost of decision and the strategy contributes to the evolution of cooperation.

Authors:  Tetsushi Ohdaira
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-03-14       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Time Pressure and In-group Favoritism in a Minimal Group Paradigm.

Authors:  Kaede Maeda; Hirofumi Hashimoto
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2020-11-12

7.  Increasing prosocial behavior and decreasing selfishness in the lab and everyday life.

Authors:  Andrew T Gloster; Marcia T B Rinner; Andrea H Meyer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-12-04       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Intuition, reflection, and prosociality: Evidence from a field experiment.

Authors:  Sascha Grehl; Andreas Tutić
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Is oxytocin a trust hormone? Salivary oxytocin is associated with caution but not with general trust.

Authors:  Qiulu Shou; Junko Yamada; Kuniyuki Nishina; Masahiro Matsunaga; Toko Kiyonari; Haruto Takagishi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-06       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Beliefs about others' intentions determine whether cooperation is the faster choice.

Authors:  Juana Castro Santa; Filippos Exadaktylos; Salvador Soto-Faraco
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-05-14       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.