Advertisement

Human Nature

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 88–108 | Cite as

Engineering Human Cooperation

Does Involuntary Neural Activation Increase Public Goods Contributions?
Article

Abstract

In a laboratory experiment, we use a public goods game to examine the hypothesis that human subjects use an involuntary eye-detector mechanism for evaluating the level of privacy. Half of our subjects are “watched” by images of a robot presented on their computer screen. The robot—named Kismet and invented at MIT—is constructed from objects that are obviously not human with the exception of its eyes. In our experiment, Kismet produces a significant difference in behavior that is not consistent with existing economic models of preferences, either self- or other-regarding. Subjects who are “watched” by Kismet contribute 29% more to the public good than do subjects in the same setting without Kismet.

Keywords

Altruism Proximate causation Public goods Reciprocity Tinbergen 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Brian Hare’s research is supported by a Sofja Kovalevskaja award received from The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research. In implementing and running the experiment, we benefited from the excellent work of the staff of the HBS experimental laboratory, including Steve Oliveira, Nick McKinney, Alyssa Knotts, Jill Hogue, and Toni Wegner. We appreciate the help and/or comments of Ernst Fehr, Urs Fishbacher, Simon Gächter, Kevin McCabe, Keith Murgnihan, Al Roth, and Lise Vesterlund. The paper was improved by comments from Steve Platek and two anonymous referees.

References

  1. Andreoni, J., & Petrie, R. (2004). Public goods experiment without confidentiality: A glimpse into fund-raising. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1605–1623.Google Scholar
  2. Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An Essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baron-Cohen, S., Campbell, R., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Grant, J., & Walker, J. (1995). Are children with autism blind to the mentalistic significance of the eyes? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13, 379–398.Google Scholar
  5. Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real world setting. Biology Letters, 2, 412–414. Retrieved from www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk.Google Scholar
  6. Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122–142.Google Scholar
  7. Bolton, G. (1991). A comparative model of bargaining: theory and evidence. American Economic Review, 81, 1096–1136.Google Scholar
  8. Bolton, G., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. American Economic Review, 90, 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolton, G., & Zwick, R. (1995). Anonymity versus punishment in ultimatum bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 95–121.Google Scholar
  10. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. vol. I: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss, vol. II: Separation, anxiety, and anger. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  12. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). Homo reciprocans. Nature, 415, 125–126.Google Scholar
  13. Boyd, R., Gintis, H., Bowles, S., & Richerson, P. J. (2003). The evolution of altruistic punishment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 3531–3535.Google Scholar
  14. Breazeal, C. (2003). Emotion and sociable humanoid robots. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 59, 119–155.Google Scholar
  15. Breazeal, C., & Scassellati, B. (2002). Robots that imitate humans. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6, 481–487.Google Scholar
  16. Brothers, L. (1990). The neural basis of primate social communication. Motivation & Emotion, 14, 81–91.Google Scholar
  17. Brothers, L. (1996). Brain mechanisms of social cognition. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 10, 2–8.Google Scholar
  18. Brothers, L., Ring, B., & Kling, A. (1990). Response of neurons in the macaque amygdala to complex social stimuli. Behavioural Brain Research, 41, 199–213.Google Scholar
  19. Burnham, T. C. (1997). Essays on genetic evolution and economics. Parkland, FL. Retrieved from www.dissertation.com.
  20. Burnham, T. C. (2001). Altruism and spite in a selfish gene model of endogenous preferences. Journal of BioEconomics, 3, 123–148.Google Scholar
  21. Burnham, T. C. (2003). Engineering altruism: A theoretical and experimental investigation of anonymity and gift giving. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 50, 133–144.Google Scholar
  22. Burnham, T. C. (2007). High-testosterone men reject low ultimatum game offers. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences (in press).Google Scholar
  23. Burnham, T. C., & Johnson, D. (2005). The biological and evolutionary logic of human cooperation. Analyse & Kritik, 27(2), 113–135.Google Scholar
  24. Burnham, T. C., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. L. (2000). Friend-or-Foe priming in an extensive form trust game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 43, 57–73.Google Scholar
  25. Byrne, R. W., & Whiten, A. (1988). Machiavellian intelligence: Social expertise and the evolution of intellect in monkeys, apes, and humans. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  26. Call, J., Brauer, J., Kaminski, J., Tomasello, M. (2003). Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) are sensitive to the attentional state of humans. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 117, 257–263.Google Scholar
  27. Camerer, C. (2003). Strategizing in the brain. Science, 300, 1673–1675.Google Scholar
  28. Cameron, L. (1999). Raising the Stakes in the ultimatum game: Experimental evidence from Indonesia. Economic Inquiry, 37, 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Campbell, R., Heywood, C. A., Cowey, A., Regard, M., & Landis, T. (1990). Sensitivity to eye gaze in prosopagnosic patients and monkeys with superior temporal sulcus ablation. Neuropsychologia, 28, 1123–1142.Google Scholar
  30. Chagnon, N. (1992). Yanomamo, 4th ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  31. Corballis, M. C., & Lea, S. E. G. (1999). The descent of mind: Psychological perspectives on hominid evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Corkum, V., & Moore, C. (1995). Development of joint visual attention in infants. In C. Moore, & P. Dunham (Eds.) Joint attention: Its origins and role in development (pp. 61–83). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 163–228). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Coss, R. G. (1978). Delayed plasticity of an instinct: Recognition and avoidance of 2 facing eyes by the jewel fish. Developmental Psychobiology, 12, 335–345.Google Scholar
  35. Damasio, A. D., Damasio, H., & Van Hoesen, G. W. (1982). Prosopagnosia: Anatomic basis and behavioral mechanisms. Neurology, 32, 331–342.Google Scholar
  36. Dawes, R., & Thaler, R. (1988). Cooperation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2, 187–197.Google Scholar
  37. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Driver, J., Davis, G., Ricciardelli, P., Kidd, P., Maxwell, E., & Baron-Cohen, S. (1999). Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting. Visual Cognition, 6, 509–540.Google Scholar
  39. Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. (1996). Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behavior, 16, 181–191.Google Scholar
  40. Emery, N. J. (2000). The eyes have it: The neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 24, 581–604.Google Scholar
  41. Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of altruism. Nature, 425, 785–791.Google Scholar
  42. Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137–140.Google Scholar
  43. Fehr, E., & Henrich, J. (2003). Is strong reciprocity a maladaptation? On the evolutionary foundations of human altruism. In: P. Hammerstein (Ed.), The genetical and cultural evolution of cooperation (pp. 55–82). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. Fehr, E., & Rockenbach, B. (2003). Detrimental effects of sanctions on human altruism. Nature, 422, 137–140.Google Scholar
  45. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.Google Scholar
  46. Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., & Gächter, S. (2002). Strong reciprocity, human cooperation and the enforcement of social norms. Human Nature, 13, 1–25.Google Scholar
  47. Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347–369.Google Scholar
  48. Frank, R. H. (1987). If Homo economicus could choose his own utility function, would he want one with a conscience? American Economic Review, 77, 593–604.Google Scholar
  49. Frank, R. H. (1988). Passions within reason: The strategic role of emotions. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  50. Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (1999). Collective action as a social exchange. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 39, 341–369.Google Scholar
  51. Gallup, G., Wallnau, L., & Suarez, S. (1980). Failure to find self-recognition in mother–infant and infant–infant rhesus monkey pairs. Folia Primatologica, 33, 210–219.Google Scholar
  52. Gintis, H. (2000). Strong reciprocity and human sociality. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 206, 169–179.Google Scholar
  53. Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., & Fehr, E. (2003). Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 153–172.Google Scholar
  54. Guth, W., & Tietz, R. (1990). Ultimatum bargaining behavior: A survey and comparison of experimental results. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11, 417–449.Google Scholar
  55. Guth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 367–388.Google Scholar
  56. Haley, K., & Fessler, D. (2005). Nobody’s watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 245–256.Google Scholar
  57. Hampton, R. R. (1994). Sensitivity to information specifying the line of gaze of humans in sparrows (Passer domesticus). Behaviour, 130, 41–51.Google Scholar
  58. Hare, B., Brown, M., Williamson, C., & Tomasello, M. (2002). The domestication of social cognition in dogs. Science, 298, 1634–1636.Google Scholar
  59. Hare, B., Call, J., Tomasello, M. (2001). Do chimpanzees know what conspecifics know? Animal Behaviour, 61, 139–151.Google Scholar
  60. Hare, B., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Chimpanzees deceive a human by hiding. Cognition, 101, 495–514.Google Scholar
  61. Haxby, J. V., Hoffman, E. A., & Gobbini, I. (2000). The distributed human neural system for face perception. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 223–233.Google Scholar
  62. Henrich, J. (2000). Does culture matter in economic behavior? Ultimatum game bargaining among the machiguenga of the Peruvian Amazon. American Economic Review, 90, 973–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., et al. (2001). In search of Homo economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. American Economic Review, 91, 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Heywood, C. A., & Cowey, A. (1992). The role of the “face-cell” area in the discrimination and recognition of faces by monkeys. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 335, 31–38.Google Scholar
  65. Hill, K., & Hurtado, M. (1996) Ache life history: The ecology and demography of a foraging people. New York: Aline de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  66. Hoffman, E. A., & Haxby, J. V. (2000). Distinct representations of eye gaze and identity in the distributed human neural system for face perception. Nature Neuroscience, 3, 80–84.Google Scholar
  67. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. (1994). Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 346–380.Google Scholar
  68. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. (1996a). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. American Economic Review, 86, 653–660.Google Scholar
  69. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. L. (1996b). On expectations and the monetary stakes in ultimatum games. International Journal of Game Theory, 25, 289–301.Google Scholar
  70. Jerison, H. (1973). Evolution of the brain and intelligence. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  71. Kahneman, D. (2003). A psychological perspective on economics. American Economic Review, 93, 162–168.Google Scholar
  72. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.Google Scholar
  73. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of Business, 59, S285–S300.Google Scholar
  74. Kawashima, R., Sugiura, M., Kato, T., Nakamura, A., Hatano, K., Ito, K., et al. (1999). The human amygdala plays an important role in gaze monitoring. A PET study. Brain, 122, 779–783.Google Scholar
  75. Klein, R. (1999). The human career: Human biological and cultural origins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  76. Krebs, J. R., & Dawkins, R. (1984). Animal signals: Mind reading and manipulation. In J. R. Krebs, & N. B. Davies (Eds.), Behavioural ecology: An evolutionary approach, 2nd ed. (pp. 380–402). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  77. Kurzban, R. (2001). The social psychophysics of cooperation: Nonverbal communication in a public goods game. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25, 241–259.Google Scholar
  78. Landis, T., Cummings, J. L., Christen, L., Bogen, J. E., & Imhof, H. G. (1986). Are unilateral right posterior cerebral lesions sufficient to cause prosopagnosia? Clinical and radiological findings in six additional patients. Cortex, 22, 243–252.Google Scholar
  79. Laury, S. J., Walker, J. M., & Williams, A. W. (1995). Anonymity and voluntary provision of public goods. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 27, 365–380.Google Scholar
  80. Ledyard, J. O. (1995). Public goods. In J. H. Kagel, & A. E. Roth, (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics (pp. 111–194). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Lee, R. (1993). The Dobe Júhoansi. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  82. Levine, D. (1998). Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Review of Economic Dynamics, 1, 593–622.Google Scholar
  83. Mayr, E. (1961). Cause and effect in biology. Science, 134, 1501–1506.Google Scholar
  84. McCabe, K. (2003). A cognitive theory of reciprocal exchange. In E. Ostrom, J. Walker (Eds.), Trust and reciprocity: Interdisciplinary lessons from experimental research (pp. 147–169). New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  85. McCabe, K., Houser, D., Ryan, L., Smith, V., & Trouard, T. (2001). A functional imaging study of cooperation in two-person reciprocal exchange. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 98, 11832–11835.Google Scholar
  86. McCabe, K. A., Rassenti, S. J., & Smith, V. L. (1996). Game theory and reciprocity in some extensive form experimental games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 93, 113421–113428.Google Scholar
  87. McCabe, K., & Smith, V. L. (2001). Goodwill accounting in economic exchange. In G. Gigerenzer, & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox (pp. 319–340). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  88. McCabe, K. A., Smith, V. L., & LePore, M. (1997). Intentionality detection and “Mindreading”: Why does game form matter? Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 97, 4404–4409.Google Scholar
  89. Mistlin, A. J., & Perrett, D. I. (1990). Visual and somatosensory processing in the macaque temporal cortex: The role of “Expectation.” Experimental Brain Research, 82, 437–450.Google Scholar
  90. Nowak, M. A., Page, K. M., & Sigmund, K. (2000). Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum bargaining game. Science, 289, 1773–1775.Google Scholar
  91. Perrett, D. I., Rolls, E. T., & Caan, W. (1982). Visual neurones responsive to faces in the monkey temporal cortex. Experimental Brain Research, 47, 329–342.Google Scholar
  92. Perrett, D. I., Smith, P. A. J., Potter, D. D., Mistlin, A. J., Head, A. S., Milner, A. D., et al. (1985). Visual cells in the temporal cortex sensitive to face view and gaze direction. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 223, 293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Pickens, R., & Harris, W. C. (1968). Self-administration of d-amphetamine by rats. Psychopharmacologia, 12, 158–163.Google Scholar
  94. Povinelli, D. (2000). Folk physics for apes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Puce, A., Allison, T., Bentin, S., Gore, J. C., & McCarthy, G. (1998). Temporal cortex activation in humans viewing eye and mouth movements. Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 2188–2199.Google Scholar
  96. Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and econometrics. American Economic Review, 83, 1281–1303.Google Scholar
  97. Rege, M., & Telle, K. (2004). The impact of social approval and framing on cooperation in public good situations. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1625–1644.Google Scholar
  98. Renfrew, C., & Bahn, C. (1991). Archeology: Theories, methods, and practice. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
  99. Rilling, J. K., Gutman, D., Zeh, T., Pagnoni, G., Berns, G., & Kilts, C. (2002). A neural basis for social cooperation. Neuron, 35, 395–405.Google Scholar
  100. Roth, A. E., Prasnikar, V., Okuno-Fujiwara, M., & Zamir, S. (1991). Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An experimental study. American Economic Review, 81, 1068–1095.Google Scholar
  101. Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300, 1755–1758.Google Scholar
  102. Schelling, T. (1978). Altruism, meanness and other potentially strategic behaviors. American Economic Review, 68, 229–230.Google Scholar
  103. Silk, J. (2003). Social bonds of female baboons enhance infant survival. Science, 302, 1231–1234.Google Scholar
  104. Smith, K., Dickhaut, J., McCabe, K., & Pardo, J. V. (2002). Neuronal substrates for choice under ambiguity, risk, gains and losses. Management Science, 48, 711–718.Google Scholar
  105. Smith, K., Dickhaut, J., McCabe, K., & Pardo, J. V. (2003). The impact of the certainty context on the process of choice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 100, 3536–3541.Google Scholar
  106. Stahl, I. (1972). Bargaining theory. Stockholm: Economic Research Institute.Google Scholar
  107. Stroop, J. R. (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.Google Scholar
  108. Thaler, R. H. (1992). The Winner’s curse: Paradoxes and anomalies of economic life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods in ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, 20, 410–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Tinbergen, N. (1968) On war and peace in animals and man. An ethologist’s approach to the biology of aggression. Science, 160, 1411–1418.Google Scholar
  111. Tomasello, M. (2000). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  112. Tomasello, M., Call, J., & Hare, B. (1998). Five primate species follow the visual gaze of conspecifics. Animal Behaviour, 55, 1063–1069.Google Scholar
  113. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1989). Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, I: Theoretical considerations. Ethology & Sociobiology, 10, 29–49.Google Scholar
  114. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology & Sociobiology, 11, 375–424.Google Scholar
  115. Weeks, J. R. (1962). Experimental morphine addiction: Method for automatic intravenous injections in unrestrained rats. Science, 138, 143–144.Google Scholar
  116. Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  117. Wilson, E. O. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  118. Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  119. Winston, J. S., Strange, B. A., O’Doherty, J., & Dolan, R. J. (2002). Automatic and intentional brain responses during evaluation of trustworthiness of faces. Nature Neuroscience, 5, 277–283.Google Scholar
  120. Yamagishi, T. (1986). The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 110–116.Google Scholar
  121. Yamane, S., Kaji, S., & Kawano, K. (1988). What facial features activate face neurons in the inferotemporal cortex of the monkey? Experimental Brain Research, 73, 209–214.Google Scholar
  122. Young, A. W., Aggleton, J. P., Hellawell, D. J., Johnson, M., Broks, P., & Hanley, J. R. (1995). Face processing impairments after amygdalotomy. Brain, 118, 15–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science & Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Program for Evolutionary DynamicsHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary AnthropologyLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations