IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgames/v8y2017i2p20-d95455.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Watching Eyes and Living up to Expectations: Unkind, Not Kind, Eyes Increase First Mover Cooperation in a Sequential Prisoner’s Dilemma

Author

Listed:
  • Loren Pauwels

    (Department of Management, Faculty of Applied Economics, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, Antwerpen 2000, Belgium)

  • Carolyn H. Declerck

    (Department of Management, Faculty of Applied Economics, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, Antwerpen 2000, Belgium)

  • Christophe Boone

    (Department of Management, Faculty of Applied Economics, University of Antwerp, Prinsstraat 13, Antwerpen 2000, Belgium)

Abstract

(1) Background: Why and when images of watching eyes encourage prosocial behavior is still subject to discussion, and two recent meta-analyses show no effect of watching eyes on generosity. This study aims to discern the effect of watching eyes of different valence on two separate aspects of prosocial behavior, and additionally investigates whether individuals’ social value orientation moderates the effect of eyes. (2) Methods: Individuals take on the role of either a first or second mover in an incentivized, anonymous sequential prisoner’s dilemma ( n = 247), a two-person game which separates the need to form expectations about the other player (first mover cooperation, trust) from the motive of greed (second mover cooperation, reciprocity). During decision-making, a picture of either kind eyes, unkind eyes, or a control picture is presented above each decision matrix. (3) Results: The results indicate that unkind eyes, and not kind eyes, significantly boost first mover cooperation. In contrast, neither type of eye cues increase second mover cooperation. Social value orientation does not moderate these effects. (4) Conclusions: Thus, the data suggest that the valence of eye cues matters, and we propose that unkind eyes urge first movers to live up to the interaction partner’s expectations.

Suggested Citation

  • Loren Pauwels & Carolyn H. Declerck & Christophe Boone, 2017. "Watching Eyes and Living up to Expectations: Unkind, Not Kind, Eyes Increase First Mover Cooperation in a Sequential Prisoner’s Dilemma," Games, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-13, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:8:y:2017:i:2:p:20-:d:95455
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/8/2/20/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/8/2/20/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mathias Ekström, 2012. "Do watching eyes affect charitable giving? Evidence from a field experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 530-546, September.
    2. Benjamin Grant Purzycki & Coren Apicella & Quentin D. Atkinson & Emma Cohen & Rita Anne McNamara & Aiyana K. Willard & Dimitris Xygalatas & Ara Norenzayan & Joseph Henrich, 2016. "Moralistic gods, supernatural punishment and the expansion of human sociality," Nature, Nature, vol. 530(7590), pages 327-330, February.
    3. Ernesto Reuben & Sigrid Suetens, 2012. "Revisiting strategic versus non-strategic cooperation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 24-43, March.
    4. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    5. repec:feb:natura:0059 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    7. Daniel Nettle & Kenneth Nott & Melissa Bateson, 2012. "‘Cycle Thieves, We Are Watching You’: Impact of a Simple Signage Intervention against Bicycle Theft," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-5, December.
    8. Rigdon, Mary & Ishii, Keiko & Watabe, Motoki & Kitayama, Shinobu, 2009. "Minimal social cues in the dictator game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 358-367, June.
    9. Melissa Bateson & Daniel Nettle & Gilbert Roberts, 2006. "Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting," Natural Field Experiments 00214, The Field Experiments Website.
    10. Christophe Boone & Carolyn Declerck & Toko Kiyonari, 2010. "Inducing Cooperative Behavior among Proselfs versus Prosocials: The Moderating Role of Incentives and Trust," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(5), pages 799-824, October.
    11. Melissa Bateson & Luke Callow & Jessica R Holmes & Maximilian L Redmond Roche & Daniel Nettle, 2013. "Do Images of ‘Watching Eyes’ Induce Behaviour That Is More Pro-Social or More Normative? A Field Experiment on Littering," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, 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. Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Joo Young Jeon & Bibhas Saha, 2014. "Eye-image in Experiments: Social Cue or Experimenter Demand Effect?," University of East Anglia Applied and Financial Economics Working Paper Series 067, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    2. Jan Krátký & John J McGraw & Dimitris Xygalatas & Panagiotis Mitkidis & Paul Reddish, 2016. "It Depends Who Is Watching You: 3-D Agent Cues Increase Fairness," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-11, February.
    3. Melissa Bateson & Luke Callow & Jessica R Holmes & Maximilian L Redmond Roche & Daniel Nettle, 2013. "Do Images of ‘Watching Eyes’ Induce Behaviour That Is More Pro-Social or More Normative? A Field Experiment on Littering," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    4. Vesely, Stepan & Klöckner, Christian A. & Carrus, Giuseppe & Chokrai, Parissa & Fritsche, Immo & Masson, Torsten & Panno, Angelo & Tiberio, Lorenza & Udall, Alina M., 2022. "Donations to renewable energy projects: The role of social norms and donor anonymity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    5. Johnsen, Åshild A & Kvaløy, Ola, 2014. "You always meet twice: An experiment on intrinsic versus instrumental reciprocity," UiS Working Papers in Economics and Finance 2014/2, University of Stavanger.
    6. Daniel Nettle & Kenneth Nott & Melissa Bateson, 2012. "‘Cycle Thieves, We Are Watching You’: Impact of a Simple Signage Intervention against Bicycle Theft," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-5, December.
    7. Gosnell, Greer K., 2018. "Communicating Resourcefully: A Natural Field Experiment on Environmental Framing and Cognitive Dissonance in Going Paperless," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 128-144.
    8. Yuki Miyazaki, 2013. "Increasing Visual Search Accuracy by Being Watched," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-8, January.
    9. Burton-Chellew, Maxwell, 2022. "The restart effect in social dilemmas shows humans are self-interested not altruistic," SocArXiv hgznu, Center for Open Science.
    10. Jia, Z. Tingting & McMahon, Matthew J., 2020. "Being watched in an investment game setting: Behavioral changes when making risky decisions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    11. Terence C. Burnham & Jay Phelan, 2023. "Ordinaries 13: apparent spite & apparent altruism," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 147-180, December.
    12. Johnsen, Åshild A. & Kvaløy, Ola, 2016. "Does strategic kindness crowd out prosocial behavior?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 132(PA), pages 1-11.
    13. Tussyadiah, Iis & Miller, Graham, 2019. "Nudged by a robot: Responses to agency and feedback," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Müller, Wieland & Tan, Fangfang, 2013. "Who acts more like a game theorist? Group and individual play in a sequential market game and the effect of the time horizon," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 658-674.
    15. Sääksvuori, Lauri & Ramalingam, Abhijit, 2015. "Bargaining under surveillance: Evidence from a three-person ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 66-78.
    16. Bernadette von Dawans & Amalie Trueg & Clemens Kirschbaum & Urs Fischbacher & Markus Heinrichs, 2018. "Acute social and physical stress interact to influence social behavior: The role of social anxiety," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-21, October.
    17. Axel Franzen & Sonja Pointner, 2013. "Giving according to preferences: Decision-making in the group dictator game," University of Bern Social Sciences Working Papers 2, University of Bern, Department of Social Sciences, revised 24 Jan 2014.
    18. Sarah Jacobson & Ragan Petrie, 2014. "Favor trading in public good provision," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(3), pages 439-460, September.
    19. Fenzl, Thomas & Brudermann, Thomas, 2021. "Eye cues increase cooperation in the dictator game under physical attendance of a recipient, but not for all," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    20. Kei Tsutsui & Daniel Zizzo, 2014. "Group status, minorities and trust," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(2), pages 215-244, June.

    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:8:y:2017:i:2:p:20-:d:95455. 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.