Prosocials prefer equal outcomes to maximizing joint outcomes

Distributive fairness during the transition to adolescence: The role of peer comparison and social value orientation

Combining the dictator game (DG) and the ultimatum game (UG), this study recruited 546 Chinese children (321 boys, aged 9-12 years) as distributors, and found that both peer comparison and social value orientation (SVO) significantly influenced children's distributive fairness from late childhood to early adolescence. Results showed that as the unfairness of peer proposals increased, participants decreased the amount of gold coins distributed to the receiver in both tasks, revealing a peer comparison effect. This effect was more pronounced for adolescents than for children in both tasks. In addition, participants' fair distribution behaviors in the DG showed a three-way interaction effect of SVO, grade, and peer comparison. Specifically, for proselfs, children were not influenced by peers and consistently proposed self-interested distributions, whereas adolescents exhibited a peer comparison effect; for prosocials, both children and adolescents were influenced by peers, but children decreased the amount of their distributions only when they saw peers make extremely unfair distributions, whereas adolescents decreased the amount of their distributions when they saw peers make both mildly and extremely unfair distributions. This study highlights the importance of social environment and personal trait in shaping children's fair distribution behavior during the transition from late childhood to early adolescence.

Positive reputation for altruism toward future generations regardless of the cost for current others

Recently, altruism toward future generations (future altruism) has become a hot research topic. Although future altruism has been observed in several previous experiments, it is not yet clear when and why people are more likely to engage in future altruism. Drawing upon the empirical literature of reputation and cooperation, we predicted that future altruism brings reputational disadvantages. Accordingly, we investigated whether future altruism was evaluated positively or negatively by others in the current generation in two vignette studies (total N = 1,237). Contrary to our initial prediction, we found that future altruism was positively evaluated even when it decreased the payoff of the members of the current generation. The difference in the evaluation of future altruism, as opposed to unsustainable current-generation focused behavior, was most pronounced when people do not know how a future altruist allocates rewards among individuals in the current generation. However, the positive evaluation of future altruism did not stem from the expectation that future altruists would also be altruistic toward the current generation. These results indicated that reputational benefits (i.e., positive reputation from others in the current generation) promote future altruism.

Social value orientation modulates fairness processing during social decision-making: evidence from behavior and brain potentials

Social value orientation (SVO) characterizes stable individual differences by an inherent sense of fairness in outcome allocations. Using the event-related potential (ERP), this study investigated differences in fairness decision-making behavior and neural bases between individuals with prosocial and proself orientations using the Ultimatum Game (UG). Behavioral results indicated that prosocials were more prone to rejecting unfair offers with stronger negative emotional reactions compared with proselfs. ERP results revealed that prosocials showed a larger P2 when receiving fair offers than unfair ones in a very early processing stage, whereas such effect was absent in proselfs. In later processing stages, although both groups were sensitive to fairness as reflected by an enhanced medial frontal negativity (MFN) for unfair offers and a larger P3 for fair offers, prosocials exhibited a stronger fairness effect on these ERP components relative to proselfs. Furthermore, the fairness effect on the MFN mediated the SVO effect on rejecting unfair offers. Findings regarding emotional experiences, behavioral patterns and ERPs provide compelling evidence that SVO modulates fairness processing in social decision-making, whereas differences in neural responses to unfair vs fair offers as evidenced by the MFN appear to play important roles in the SVO effect on behavioral responses to unfairness.

People prefer joint outcome prosocial resource distribution towards future others

Today, developing and maintaining sustainable societies is becoming a notable social concern, and studies on altruism and prosociality toward future generations are increasing in importance. Although altruistic behaviors toward future generations have previously been observed in some experimental situations, it remains unknown whether prosocial preferences toward future others are based on equality or joint outcome orientations. In the present research, we exploratorily investigated preferences regarding resource distribution by manipulating the time points (i.e., present/future) of the participants and their imaginary partners. The results indicate that prosocial preference toward future others was as strong as that toward present others and seemed to be based on a joint outcome prosocial preference. Notably, when participants and their partners were at different time points, participants preferred to leave resources for the persons in the future. The findings indicate that the type of altruistic preference toward future others may differ from that toward present others, which is mainly equality.

How do individuals evaluate and respond to pro-equality decision makers? It depends on joint outcome and Social Value Orientation

The current studies investigated how a manipulation in joint outcome influenced individuals’ responses to pro-equality/individualistic decision makers. In Study 1 (N = 175), we examined the impact of whether equal distribution led to maximum joint outcome or not on individuals’ evaluations of, and reactions to, partners choosing either equal or individualistic distributions. In Study 2 (N = 164), we further examined the moderating roles of individual differences in general social value orientation (SVO) and preferences for joint outcome (vs. equality). Important findings include: a) individuals evaluated a pro-equality partner as less warm when equal distribution did not afford maximum joint outcome than when it did; b) individuals, especially those who scored high on preferences for joint outcome (relative to equality), were less likely to chose equal distribution when equality did not maximize joint outcome than when it did; and c) individuals who preferred joint outcome to equality evaluated individualistic partners as warmer when equal distribution did not yield maximum joint outcome than when it did. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Are Prosocials Unique in Their Egalitarianism? The Pursuit of Equality in Outcomes Among Individualists

The present research aims to elucidate to what extent the motive to ensure equality in outcomes is general and to what extent it interacts with other important motives such as maximizing own or collective gains. Because individuals may have different considerations and motivations in decision-making situations, it is likely that people with a different social value orientation will respond differently to an unequal distribution of outcomes. Contrary to expectations, not only prosocials care about equality in outcomes. In Study 1, the authors found that individualists choose to forego personal gains, despite obvious selfish reasons to cooperate, when outcomes were distributed unequally. In a second experiment, this finding was replicated and shows that individualists, just as prosocials, demand equality in outcomes in interdependent situations. The studies suggest that typifying individualists as solely being concerned about enhancing personal outcomes is too limited and that fairness norms may trump social value orientation.

Social Value Orientation

What motivates people when they make decisions and how those motivations are potentially entangled with concerns for others are central topics for the social, cognitive, and behavioral sciences. According to the postulate of narrow self-interest, decision makers have the goal of maximizing personal payoffs and are wholly indifferent to the consequences for others. The postulate of narrow self-interest—which has been influential in economics, psychology, and sociology—is precise and powerful but is often simply wrong. Its inadequacy is well known and efforts have been made to develop reliable and valid measurement methods to quantify the more nuanced social preferences that people really have. In this paper, we report on the emergence and development of the predominant conceptualization of social preferences in psychology: social value orientation (SVO). Second, we discuss the relationship between measurement and theory development of the SVO construct. We then provide an overview of the literature regarding measurement methods that have been used to assess individual variations in social preferences. We conclude with a comparative evaluation of the various measures and provide suggestions regarding the measures’ constructive use in building psychologically realistic theories of people’s social preferences.

Rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is no evidence of strong reciprocity

The strong reciprocity model of the evolution of human cooperation has gained some acceptance, partly on the basis of support from experimental findings. The observation that unfair offers in the ultimatum game are frequently rejected constitutes an important piece of the experimental evidence for strong reciprocity. In the present study, we have challenged the idea that the rejection response in the ultimatum game provides evidence of the assumption held by strong reciprocity theorists that negative reciprocity observed in the ultimatum game is inseparably related to positive reciprocity as the two sides of a preference for fairness. The prediction of an inseparable relationship between positive and negative reciprocity was rejected on the basis of the results of a series of experiments that we conducted using the ultimatum game, the dictator game, the trust game, and the prisoner's dilemma game. We did not find any correlation between the participants' tendencies to reject unfair offers in the ultimatum game and their tendencies to exhibit various prosocial behaviors in the other games, including their inclinations to positively reciprocate in the trust game. The participants' responses to postexperimental questions add support to the view that the rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is a tacit strategy for avoiding the imposition of an inferior status.

Rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is no evidence of strong reciprocity

The strong reciprocity model of the evolution of human cooperation has gained some acceptance, partly on the basis of support from experimental findings. The observation that unfair offers in the ultimatum game are frequently rejected constitutes an important piece of the experimental evidence for strong reciprocity. In the present study, we have challenged the idea that the rejection response in the ultimatum game provides evidence of the assumption held by strong reciprocity theorists that negative reciprocity observed in the ultimatum game is inseparably related to positive reciprocity as the two sides of a preference for fairness. The prediction of an inseparable relationship between positive and negative reciprocity was rejected on the basis of the results of a series of experiments that we conducted using the ultimatum game, the dictator game, the trust game, and the prisoner's dilemma game. We did not find any correlation between the participants' tendencies to reject unfair offers in the ultimatum game and their tendencies to exhibit various prosocial behaviors in the other games, including their inclinations to positively reciprocate in the trust game. The participants' responses to postexperimental questions add support to the view that the rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is a tacit strategy for avoiding the imposition of an inferior status.

Injustice for all or just for me? Social value orientation predicts responses to own versus other's procedures

In two experiments, the authors investigated how differences in social value orientation predict evaluations of procedures that were accorded to self and others. Proselfs versus prosocials were either granted or denied an opportunity to voice an opinion in a decision-making process and witnessed how someone else was either granted or denied such an opportunity. Consistent with the hypothesis, procedural evaluations of both proselfs and prosocials were influenced by own procedure when other was granted voice, but only proselfs were influenced by own procedure when other was denied voice. These findings were particularly attributable to prosocials' tendency to evaluate a situation where no-voice procedures are applied consistently between persons more positively than proselfs. It is concluded that proselfs are focused on procedural justice and injustice for self more than prosocials, whereas prosocials value equality in procedures more than proselfs-even when equality implies injustice for all.

The development of social value orientation across different contexts

This study aimed to explore Chinese children's social value orientation across different ages and contexts. Revised decomposed games were used to measure the social value orientation of 9-, 11-, and 14-year-old children and college students as an adult group. About half of them were assigned to the hypothetical context of "equal payment group," providing equal compensation for participation in the study, and the others to the "real payment group," who got payment according to their own choices in the games. Results showed that 9- and 11-year-old children's choices differed between the two contexts: They made more prosocial choices in the hypothetical context, and more competitive choices in the "real payment" context. The 14-year-olds' and adults' choices were not significantly different in the two contexts. These results may imply that by 14 years of age, children have stable social value orientation, and their behavior reflects this value.

Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A review and conceptual model

Social psychologists have long recognized that people fundamentally differ with respect to their social value orientation (SVO), that is, self-regarding versus other regarding preferences, and that these differences affect cooperative behaviour in situations of interdependence. In this paper, we systematically review the vast number of findings on SVO and cooperation, and synthesize the state of the art by presenting an integrated conceptual model that may explain why and when people with different social values select different behavioural strategies in social dilemmas. Specifically, building on Pruitt and Kimmel's (1977) goal/expectation theory and our review of the literature, we suggest that the relationship between SVO and cooperative behaviour is mediated by (1) a cooperative goal and (2) the specific expectations concerning alters' behaviour. We also propose that trust and goal alignment are important contextual moderators of this relationship: for prosocials, cues signalling trust are necessary to generate positive expectations regarding alters' behaviour, whereas proselfs need external incentives to align their personal interest with a cooperative goal. We conclude this review by pointing to several avenues for future research that would help to deepen our understanding of the role of SVO in human cooperation.

Social Value Orientation and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta-Analysis

This article reports a meta-analysis of 82 studies assessing the relationship between social value orientation (SVO) and cooperation in social dilemmas. A significant and small to medium effect size was found ( r = .30). Results supported a hypothesis that the effect size was larger when participants were not paid ( r = .39) than when they were paid ( r = .23). The effect size was also larger in give-some ( r = .29) as opposed to take-some ( r = .22) games. However, contrary to expectations, the effect was not larger in one-shot, as opposed to iterated games. Findings are discussed in the context of theory on SVO and directions for future research are outlined.

Sympathy and Social Order

Social order is possible only if individuals forgo the narrow pursuit of self-interest for the greater good. For over a century, social scientists have argued that sympathy mitigates self-interest and recent empirical work supports this claim. Much less is known about why actors experience sympathy in the first place, particularly in fleeting interactions with strangers, where cooperation is especially uncertain. We argue that perceived interdependence increases sympathy towards strangers. Results from our first study, a vignette experiment, support this claim and suggests a situational solution to social dilemmas. Meanwhile, previous work points to two strong individual-level predictors of cooperation: generalized trust and social values. In Study Two we address the intersection of situational and individual-level explanations to ask: does situational sympathy mediate these individual-level predictors of cooperation? Results from the second study, a laboratory experiment, support our hypotheses that sympathy mediates the generalized trust-cooperation link and the relationship between social values and cooperation. The paper concludes with a discussion of limitations of the present work and directions for future research.