IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v92y2021ics2214804320306972.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Empathy, gender, and prosocial behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Kamas, Linda
  • Preston, Anne

Abstract

This paper examines how empathy is associated with gender differences in prosocial behavior in some economic games. Examining dictator, charitable giving, public goods, and trust games, we find that accounting for empathy eliminates the significance of gender differences in prosocial behavior in all four games. When the data are pooled from all games, the reduction in the female coefficients are significant after including either total empathy or empathic concern. The strong effect of empathy on prosocial behavior in the four games persists with controls for college major and demographics. This pattern replicates itself only with empathic concern, not the other empathy subscales. We conclude that measured gender differences in prosocial behavior in the games are not due wholly to sex per se, but at least partially to personality traits such as empathy that both sexes share, and that the most empathic men act as prosocially as do women.

Suggested Citation

  • Kamas, Linda & Preston, Anne, 2021. "Empathy, gender, and prosocial behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:92:y:2021:i:c:s2214804320306972
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2020.101654
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804320306972
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2020.101654?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tania Singer & Ernst Fehr, 2005. "The Neuroeconomics of Mind Reading and Empathy," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(2), pages 340-345, May.
    2. James Andreoni & Lise Vesterlund, 2001. "Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 293-312.
    3. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Differences in the Economic Decisions of Men and Women: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 57, pages 509-519, Elsevier.
    4. Andreoni, James & Rao, Justin M., 2011. "The power of asking: How communication affects selfishness, empathy, and altruism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 513-520.
    5. Kamas, Linda & Preston, Anne, 2015. "Can social preferences explain gender differences in economic behavior?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 525-539.
    6. Johnson, Noel D. & Mislin, Alexandra A., 2011. "Trust games: A meta-analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 865-889.
    7. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    8. Molnar-Szakacs, Istvan, 2011. "From actions to empathy and morality - A neural perspective," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 76-85, January.
    9. Hoffman, Elizabeth & McCabe, Kevin & Smith, Vernon L, 1996. "Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 653-660, June.
    10. Dirk Engelmann & Martin Strobel, 2004. "Inequality Aversion, Efficiency, and Maximin Preferences in Simple Distribution Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 857-869, September.
    11. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    12. Jordan van Rijn & Esteban J. Quiñones & Bradford L. Barham, "undated". "Empathic Concern for Children and the Gender-Donations Gap," Mathematica Policy Research Reports bd7b6281a24a4fba8acfd07b6, Mathematica Policy Research.
    13. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    14. de Oliveira, Angela C.M. & Eckel, Catherine C. & Croson, Rachel T.A., 2014. "Solidarity among the poor," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 144-148.
    15. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2008. "What's in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-35, October.
    16. James Andreoni & Justin M. Rao & Hannah Trachtman, 2017. "Avoiding the Ask: A Field Experiment on Altruism, Empathy, and Charitable Giving," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(3), pages 625-653.
    17. V. Pelligra, 2011. "Empathy, Guilt-Aversion and Patterns of Reciprocity," Working Paper CRENoS 201108, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    18. Buchner, Susanne & Coricelli, Giorgio & Greiner, Ben, 2007. "Self-centered and other-regarding behavior in the solidarity game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 293-303, February.
    19. Grohn, Jan & Huck, Steffen & Valasek, Justin Mattias, 2014. "A note on empathy in games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 383-388.
    20. Tania Singer & Ben Seymour & John P. O'Doherty & Klaas E. Stephan & Raymond J. Dolan & Chris D. Frith, 2006. "Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others," Nature, Nature, vol. 439(7075), pages 466-469, January.
    21. Vittorio Pelligra & Alejandra Vásquez, 2020. "Empathy and socially responsible consumption: an experiment with the vote-with-the-wallet game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 89(4), pages 383-422, November.
    22. Florian Artinger & Filippos Exadaktylos & Hannes Koppel & Lauri Sääksvuori, 2014. "In Others' Shoes: Do Individual Differences in Empathy and Theory of Mind Shape Social Preferences?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    23. Bruno S. Frey & Iris Bohnet, 1999. "Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 335-339, March.
    24. Linda Kamas & Anne Preston, 2012. "Gender and Social Preferences in the US: An Experimental Study," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 135-160, January.
    25. Elizabeth Hoffman & Kevin McCabe & Vernon Smith, 2000. "The Impact of Exchange Context on the Activation of Equity in Ultimatum Games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(1), pages 5-9, June.
    26. Khachaturyan, Marianna & Czap, Natalia V., 2016. "Different Strokes for Different Folks: Gender and Emotions in an Environmental Game," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 5(4).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mariola Laguna & Evelina Longis & Zofia Mazur-Socha & Guido Alessandri, 2022. "Explaining Prosocial Behavior from the Inter-and Within-Individual Perspectives: A Role of Positive Orientation and Positive Affect," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1599-1615, April.
    2. Tania Noël & Benoit Dardenne, 2022. "Relationships between Green Space Attendance, Perceived Crowdedness, Perceived Beauty and Prosocial Behavior in Time of Health Crisis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-18, June.
    3. Hossain, Md Shamim & Rahman, Mst Farjana, 2022. "Detection of potential customers’ empathy behavior towards customers' reviews," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Arcadio de Jesús Cardona-Isaza & Remedios González Barrón & Inmaculada Montoya-Castilla, 2023. "Empathy and Prosocial Behavior in Adolescent Offenders: The Mediating Role of Rational Decisions," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, October.
    5. Xizheng Xu & Zhiqiang Liu & Shaoying Gong & Yunpeng Wu, 2022. "The Relationship between Empathy and Attachment in Children and Adolescents: Three-Level Meta-Analyses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-18, January.
    6. Wong, Amy & Lee, Marcus, 2022. "Building engagement in online brand communities: The effects of socially beneficial initiatives on collective social capital," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kamas, Linda & Preston, Anne, 2015. "Can social preferences explain gender differences in economic behavior?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 525-539.
    2. Bruttel, Lisa & Stolley, Florian, 2020. "Getting a yes. An experiment on the power of asking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    3. Murnighan, J. Keith & Wang, Long, 2016. "The social world as an experimental game," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 80-94.
    4. Sylvie Thoron, 2016. "Morality Beyond Social Preferences: Smithian Sympathy, Social Neuroscience and the Nature of Social Consciousness [La moralité au delà des préférences sociales. La sympathie Smithienne, les neurosc," Post-Print hal-01645043, HAL.
    5. Sharma, Smriti, 2015. "Gender and distributional preferences: Experimental evidence from India," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 113-123.
    6. Karagozoglu, Emin & Riedl, Arno, 2010. "Information, Uncertainty, and Subjective Entitlements in Bargaining," IZA Discussion Papers 5079, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Zultan, Ro’i, 2012. "Strategic and social pre-play communication in the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 425-434.
    8. Dufwenberg, Martin & Muren, Astri, 2002. "Discrimination by Gender and Social Distance," Research Papers in Economics 2002:2, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
    9. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Bucheli, Marisa & Espinosa, María Paz, 2020. "Altruism and information," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    10. Smriti Sharma, 2015. "Gender and Distributional Preferences: Experimental Evidence from India," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2015-062, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    11. Sharma, Smriti, 2015. "Gender and distributional preferences: Experimental evidence from India," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 113-123.
    12. Natalia Montinari & Michela Rancan, 2018. "Risk taking on behalf of others: The role of social distance," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 81-109, August.
    13. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Jaume García-Segarra & Alexander Ritschel, 2018. "The Big Robber Game," ECON - Working Papers 291, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    14. Deborah Kerley Keisner & Kent D. Messer & William D. Schulze & Homa Zarghamee, 2013. "Testing Social Preferences for an Economic “Bad”: An Artefactual Field Experiment," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 115(1), pages 27-61, January.
    15. Wang, Xinghua & Navarro-Martinez, Daniel, 2023. "Increasing the external validity of social preference games by reducing measurement error," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 261-285.
    16. Pamela Jakiela, 2013. "Equity vs. efficiency vs. self-interest: on the use of dictator games to measure distributional preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(2), pages 208-221, June.
    17. Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Müller, Daniel, 2020. "Social preferences and political attitudes: An online experiment on a large heterogeneous sample," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    18. Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah, 2010. "Is the veil of ignorance only a concept about risk? An experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(11-12), pages 1062-1066, December.
    19. Currie, Janet & Lin, Wanchuan & Meng, Juanjuan, 2013. "Social networks and externalities from gift exchange: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 19-30.
    20. François Cochard & Hélène Couprie & Astrid Hopfensitz, 2018. "What if women earned more than their spouses? An experimental investigation of work-division in couples," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 50-71, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Empathy; Prosocial; Gender; Social preferences; Games;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers
    • J1 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:92:y:2021:i:c:s2214804320306972. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.