IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0194569.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of exposure to images of others' suffering and vulnerability on altruistic, trust-based, and reciprocated economic decision-making

Author

Listed:
  • Philip A Powell
  • Olivia Wills
  • Gemma Reynolds
  • Kaisa Puustinen-Hopper
  • Jennifer Roberts

Abstract

In this paper we explored the effects of exposure to images of the suffering and vulnerability of others on altruistic, trust-based, and reciprocated incentivized economic decisions, accounting for differences in participants’ dispositional empathy and reported in-group trust for their recipient(s). This was done using a pictorial priming task, framed as a memory test, and a triadic economic game design. Using the largest experimental sample to date to explore this issue, our integrated analysis of two online experiments (total N = 519), found statistically consistent evidence that exposure to images of suffering and vulnerability (vs. neutral images) increased altruistic in-group giving as measured by the “triple dictator game”, and that the manipulation was significantly more effective in those who reported lower trust for their recipients. The experimental manipulation also significantly increased altruistic giving in the standard “dictator game” and trust-based giving in the “investment game”, but only in those who were lower in in-group trust and also high in affective or cognitive empathy. Complementary qualitative evidence revealed the strongest motivations associated with increased giving in the experimental condition were greater assumed reciprocation and a lower aversion to risk. However, no consistent effects of the experimental manipulation on participants’ reciprocated decisions were observed. These findings suggest that, as well as altruistic decision-making in the “triple dictator game”, collaboratively witnessing the suffering of others may heighten trust-based in-group giving in the “investment game” for some people, but the effects are heterogeneous and sensitive to context.

Suggested Citation

  • Philip A Powell & Olivia Wills & Gemma Reynolds & Kaisa Puustinen-Hopper & Jennifer Roberts, 2018. "The effects of exposure to images of others' suffering and vulnerability on altruistic, trust-based, and reciprocated economic decision-making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0194569
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194569
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194569
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0194569&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0194569?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cox, James C., 2004. "How to identify trust and reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 260-281, February.
    2. Casari, Marco & Cason, Timothy N., 2009. "The strategy method lowers measured trustworthy behavior," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 103(3), pages 157-159, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Johnson, Noel D. & Mislin, Alexandra A., 2011. "Trust games: A meta-analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 865-889.
    5. Michael Naef & Jürgen Schupp, 2009. "Measuring Trust: Experiments and Surveys in Contrast and Combination," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 167, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    6. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    7. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    8. Cribari-Neto, Francisco & Zeileis, Achim, 2010. "Beta Regression in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 34(i02).
    9. 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.
    10. Nava Ashraf & Iris Bohnet & Nikita Piankov, 2006. "Decomposing trust and trustworthiness," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(3), pages 193-208, September.
    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. Kaisa Herne & Jari K Hietanen & Olli Lappalainen & Esa Palosaari, 2022. "The influence of role awareness, empathy induction and trait empathy on dictator game giving," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-19, March.

    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. Yashodha, 2019. "Trust and kinship: experimental evidence from rural India," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(2), pages 223-237, December.
    2. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    3. Fairley, Kim & Sanfey, Alan & Vyrastekova, Jana & Weitzel, Utz, 2012. "Social risk and ambiguity in the trust game," MPRA Paper 42302, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. 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.
    5. Póvoa, Angela Cristiane Santos & Pech, Wesley & Woiciekovski, Edinéia, 2020. "Trust and social preferences: A cross-cultural experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    6. van den Akker, Olmo R. & van Assen, Marcel A.L.M. & van Vugt, Mark & Wicherts, Jelte M., 2020. "Sex differences in trust and trustworthiness: A meta-analysis of the trust game and the gift-exchange game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    7. Johnson, Noel D. & Mislin, Alexandra A., 2011. "Trust games: A meta-analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 865-889.
    8. Giovanni Bartolomeo & Stefano Papa, 2016. "Trust and reciprocity: extensions and robustness of triadic design," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 100-115, March.
    9. Calabuig, Vicente & Fatas, Enrique & Olcina, Gonzalo & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2016. "Carry a big stick, or no stick at all," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 153-171.
    10. Goeschl, Timo & Jarke, Johannes, 2014. "Trust, but verify? When trustworthiness is observable only through (costly) monitoring," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 20, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    11. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2021. "Nonverbal content and trust: An experiment on digital communication," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1517-1532, October.
    12. Zhang, Zhe & Zhang, Xu & Putterman, Louis, 2019. "Trust and cooperation at a confluence of worlds: An experiment in Xinjiang, China," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 128-144.
    13. Sofianos, Andis, 2022. "Self-reported & revealed trust: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    14. Michal Bauer & Nathan Fiala & Ian Levely, 2018. "Trusting Former Rebels: An Experimental Approach to Understanding Reintegration after Civil War," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(613), pages 1786-1819, August.
    15. Kim, Jeongbin & Putterman, Louis & Zhang, Xinyi, 2022. "Trust, Beliefs and Cooperation: Excavating a Foundation of Strong Economies," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    16. Sabater-Grande, Gerardo & García-Gallego, Aurora & Georgantzís, Nikolaos & Herranz-Zarzoso, Noemí, 2022. "The effects of personality, risk and other-regarding attitudes on trust and reciprocity," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    17. Luo, Jun & Wang, Xinxin, 2020. "Hukou identity and trust—Evidence from a framed field experiment in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    18. Hernan Bejarano & Joris Gillet & Ismael Rodriguez-Lara, 2020. "Trust and Trustworthiness After Negative Random Shocks," Working Papers 20-25, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    19. Chaudhuri, Ananish & Li, Yaxiong & Paichayontvijit, Tirnud, 2016. "What’s in a frame? Goal framing, trust and reciprocity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 117-135.
    20. Isabel Thielmann & Daniel W. Heck & Benjamin E. Hilbig, 2016. "Anonymity and incentives: An investigation of techniques to reduce socially desirable responding in the Trust Game," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(5), pages 527-536, September.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0194569. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.