IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgames/v12y2021i3p67-d635740.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Development of Prosociality: Evidence for a Negative Association between Age and Prosocial Value Orientation from a Representative Sample in Austria

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Ehlert

    (Institute of Sociology, University of Zurich, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland)

  • Robert Böhm

    (Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, 1030 Vienna, Austria
    Department of Psychology and Copenhagen Center for Social Data Science (SODAS), University of Copenhagen, 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark)

  • Jürgen Fleiß

    (Business Analytics and Data Science-Center, University of Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria)

  • Heiko Rauhut

    (Institute of Sociology, University of Zurich, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland)

  • Robert Rybnicek

    (Department of Corporate Leadership and Entrepreneurship, University of Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria)

  • Fabian Winter

    (Max Planck Research Group “Mechanisms of Normative Change”, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, 53113 Bonn, Germany)

Abstract

While the ontogeny of prosociality during infancy, childhood, and adolescence has received substantial attention over the last decades, little is known about how prosocial preferences develop beyond emerging adulthood. Recent evidence suggests that the previously observed positive association between age and prosocial preferences is less robust than assumed. This study reports results on the association between social preferences, age, gender, and education from an Austrian representative sample (N = 777, aged 16–94 years) in which incentivized social value orientations (SVO) were measured along with various other sociodemographic characteristics. The analyses confirm that men are less prosocial than women, however, mainly during emerging adulthood (16–25 years). At the same time, the decline of prosociality is stronger among women leading to a convergence of prosociality between men and women as they age. Overall, we find that a prosocial value orientation is negatively correlated with people’s age. We suspect that the susceptibility of peoples’ social preferences to the preferences of others in their social environment is a critical factor unifying these different observations in the development of prosociality. We hypothesize that the opposite associations between age and SVO observed in two previous studies using unincentivized measures of social preferences are explained in parts by an age-related change in social desirability, measurement inaccuracy (continuous vs. categorical), and cross-cultural differences promoting competitive preferences among emerging adults in Japan. Moreover, we find that political orientations towards right-wing populists are consistently associated with less prosocial preferences, while education seems to be positively associated with prosociality. Overall, our study highlights the importance of conducting representative studies using incentivized measurements across cultures.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Ehlert & Robert Böhm & Jürgen Fleiß & Heiko Rauhut & Robert Rybnicek & Fabian Winter, 2021. "The Development of Prosociality: Evidence for a Negative Association between Age and Prosocial Value Orientation from a Representative Sample in Austria," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:12:y:2021:i:3:p:67-:d:635740
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/12/3/67/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/12/3/67/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Craig E. Landry & Andreas Lange & John A. List & Michael K. Price & Nicholas G. Rupp, 2006. "Toward an Understanding of the Economics of Charity: Evidence from a Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 747-782.
    2. Eckel, Catherine C & Grossman, Philip J, 1998. "Are Women Less Selfish Than Men? Evidence from Dictator Experiments," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(448), pages 726-735, May.
    3. Alexander Ehlert & Martin Kindschi & René Algesheimer & Heiko Rauhut, 2020. "Human social preferences cluster and spread in the field," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(37), pages 22787-22792, September.
    4. Wil Dijkstra & Johannes Smit & Hannie Comijs, 2001. "Using Social Desirability Scales in Research among the Elderly," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 107-115, February.
    5. John A. List, 2004. "Young, Selfish and Male: Field evidence of social preferences," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(492), pages 121-149, January.
    6. Sutter, Matthias, 2007. "Outcomes versus intentions: On the nature of fair behavior and its development with age," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 69-78, January.
    7. Bowling, Ann & Stafford, Mai, 2007. "How do objective and subjective assessments of neighbourhood influence social and physical functioning in older age? Findings from a British survey of ageing," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(12), pages 2533-2549, June.
    8. Fehr, Ernst & Glätzle-Rützler, Daniela & Sutter, Matthias, 2013. "The development of egalitarianism, altruism, spite and parochialism in childhood and adolescence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 369-383.
    9. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2003. "The nature of human altruism," Nature, Nature, vol. 425(6960), pages 785-791, October.
    10. Kindschi, Martin & Cieciuch, Jan & Davidov, Eldad & Ehlert, Alexander & Rauhut, Heiko & Tessone, Claudio Juan & Algesheimer, René, 2019. "Values in adolescent friendship networks," Network Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(4), pages 498-522, December.
    11. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2002. "Why Social Preferences Matter -- The Impact of Non-Selfish Motives on Competition, Cooperation and Incentives," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 112(478), pages 1-33, March.
    12. Ernst Fehr & Helen Bernhard & Bettina Rockenbach, 2008. "Egalitarianism in young children," Nature, Nature, vol. 454(7208), pages 1079-1083, August.
    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. Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Daniere, Amrita G. & Takahashi, Lois M., 2004. "Cooperation, trust, and social capital in Southeast Asian urban slums," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 533-551, December.
    15. Yoshie Matsumoto & Toshio Yamagishi & Yang Li & Toko Kiyonari, 2016. "Prosocial Behavior Increases with Age across Five Economic Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-16, July.
    16. Charles Bellemare & Sabine Kröger & Arthur van Soest, 2008. "Measuring Inequity Aversion in a Heterogeneous Population Using Experimental Decisions and Subjective Probabilities," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(4), pages 815-839, July.
    17. Jeffrey Carpenter & Cristina Connolly & Caitlin Myers, 2008. "Altruistic behavior in a representative dictator experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 282-298, September.
    18. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, "undated". "Why Social Preferences Matter - The Impact of Non-Selfish Motives on Competition," IEW - Working Papers 084, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    19. Martijn J. van den Assem & Dennie van Dolder & Richard H. Thaler, 2012. "Split or Steal? Cooperative Behavior When the Stakes Are Large," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 2-20, January.
    20. J Alberto Molina & J Ignacio Giménez-Nadal & José A Cuesta & Carlos Gracia-Lazaro & Yamir Moreno & Angel Sanchez, 2013. "Gender Differences in Cooperation: Experimental Evidence on High School Students," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    21. Frey, Bruno S. & Meier, Stephan, 2004. "Pro-social behavior in a natural setting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 65-88, May.
    22. Sara McLanahan & Irwin Garfinkel & Lynne Casper, 1994. "The Gender Poverty Gap: What Can We Learn From Other Countries?," LIS Working papers 112, LIS Cross-National Data Center in Luxembourg.
    23. C. R. Belfield & A. P. Beney, 2000. "What Determines Alumni Generosity? Evidence for the UK," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(1), pages 65-80.
    24. P. R. Blake & K. McAuliffe & J. Corbit & T. C. Callaghan & O. Barry & A. Bowie & L. Kleutsch & K. L. Kramer & E. Ross & H. Vongsachang & R. Wrangham & F. Warneken, 2015. "The ontogeny of fairness in seven societies," Nature, Nature, vol. 528(7581), pages 258-261, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Valeria Maggian & Marie Claire Villeval, 2016. "Social preferences and lying aversion in children," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(3), pages 663-685, September.
    2. Michal Bauer & Julie Chytilová & Barbara Pertold-Gebicka, 2014. "Parental background and other-regarding preferences in children," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(1), pages 24-46, March.
    3. Bügelmayer, Elisabeth & Katharina Spiess, C., 2014. "Spite and cognitive skills in preschoolers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 154-167.
    4. Simon Gaechter & Benedikt Herrmann, 2008. "Reciprocity, culture, and human cooperation: Previous insights and a new cross-cultural experiment," Discussion Papers 2008-14, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    5. Kettner, Sara Elisa & Waichman, Israel, 2016. "Old age and prosocial behavior: Social preferences or experimental confounds?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 118-130.
    6. John, Katrin & Thomsen, Stephan L., 2017. "Gender Differences in the Development of Other-Regarding Preferences," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-607, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    7. Simon Gaechter & Benedikt Herrmann, 2008. "Reciprocity, culture, and human cooperation: Previous insights and a new cross-cultural experiment," Discussion Papers 2008-14, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    8. Gächter, Simon & Herrmann, Benedikt, 2011. "The limits of self-governance when cooperators get punished: Experimental evidence from urban and rural Russia," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 193-210, February.
    9. Sutter, Matthias & Zoller, Claudia & Glätzle-Rützler, Daniela, 2019. "Economic behavior of children and adolescents – A first survey of experimental economics results," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 98-121.
    10. Ingvild Almås & Alexander W. Cappelen & Bertil Tungodden, 2020. "Cutthroat Capitalism versus Cuddly Socialism: Are Americans More Meritocratic and Efficiency-Seeking than Scandinavians?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(5), pages 1753-1788.
    11. Fanghella, Valeria & Faure, Corinne & Guetlein, Marie-Charlotte & Schleich, Joachim, 2022. "Discriminatory subsidies for energy-efficient technologies and the role of envy," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    12. Martijn J. van den Assem & Dennie van Dolder & Richard H. Thaler, 2012. "Split or Steal? Cooperative Behavior When the Stakes Are Large," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 2-20, January.
    13. Cleave, Blair L. & Nikiforakis, Nikos & Slonim, Robert, 2010. "Is There Selection Bias in Laboratory Experiments?," Working Papers 2010-01, University of Sydney, School of Economics.
    14. Simon Gaechter & Benedikt Herrmann, 2006. "The limits of self-governance in the presence of spite: Experimental evidence from urban and rural Russia," Discussion Papers 2006-13, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    15. Ben D'Exelle & Arno Riedl, 2010. "Directed Generosity and Network Formation: Network Dimension Matters," CESifo Working Paper Series 3287, CESifo.
    16. Rachel Croson & Enrique Fatas & Tibor Neugebauer, 2006. "An Experimental Analysis Of Conditional Cooperation," Working Papers. Serie AD 2006-24, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    17. Burks, Stephen & Carpenter, Jeffrey & Goette, Lorenz, 2009. "Performance pay and worker cooperation: Evidence from an artefactual field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 458-469, June.
    18. Drouvelis, Michalis & Metcalfe, Robert & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2010. "Priming Cooperation in Social Dilemma Games," IZA Discussion Papers 4963, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. José Alberto Molina & Alfredo Ferrer & J. Ignacio Giménez-Nadal & Carlos Gracia-Lázaro & Yamir Moreno & Angel Sánchez, 2019. "Intergenerational cooperation within the household: a Public Good game with three generations," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 535-552, June.
    20. Kleinknecht, Janina, 2019. "A man of his word? An experiment on gender differences in promise keeping," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 251-268.

    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:gam:jgames:v:12:y:2021:i:3:p:67-:d:635740. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.