IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i11p6172-d570426.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Between Joy and Sympathy: Smiling and Sad Recipient Faces Increase Prosocial Behavior in the Dictator Game

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Weiß

    (Translational Social Neuroscience Unit, Center of Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, Psychoso-matic and Psychotherapy, University of Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany)

  • Grit Hein

    (Translational Social Neuroscience Unit, Center of Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, Psychoso-matic and Psychotherapy, University of Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany)

  • Johannes Hewig

    (Department of Psychology I: Differential Psychology, Personality Psychology and Psychological Diagnostics, Institute of Psychology, University of Würzburg, 97070 Würzburg, Germany)

Abstract

In human interactions, the facial expression of a bargaining partner may contain relevant information that affects prosocial decisions. We were interested in whether facial expressions of the recipient in the dictator game influence dictators’ behavior. To test this, we conducted an online study ( n = 106) based on a modified version of a dictator game. The dictators allocated money between themselves and another person (recipient), who had no possibility to respond to the dictator. Importantly, before the allocation decision, the dictator was presented with the facial expression of the recipient (angry, disgusted, sad, smiling, or neutral). The results showed that dictators sent more money to recipients with sad or smiling facial expressions and less to recipients with angry or disgusted facial expressions compared with a neutral facial expression. Moreover, based on the sequential analysis of the decision and the interaction partner in the preceding trial, we found that decision-making depends upon previous interactions.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Weiß & Grit Hein & Johannes Hewig, 2021. "Between Joy and Sympathy: Smiling and Sad Recipient Faces Increase Prosocial Behavior in the Dictator Game," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-10, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:6172-:d:570426
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/6172/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/6172/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Forsythe Robert & Horowitz Joel L. & Savin N. E. & Sefton Martin, 1994. "Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 347-369, May.
    2. Solnick, Sara J. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 1999. "The Influence of Physical Attractiveness and Gender on Ultimatum Game Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 199-215, September.
    3. Solnick, Sara J, 2001. "Gender Differences in the Ultimatum Game," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 189-200, April.
    4. Ben-Ner, Avner & Kong, Fanmin & Putterman, Louis, 2004. "Share and share alike? Gender-pairing, personality, and cognitive ability as determinants of giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 581-589, October.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:381-385 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Neelanjan Sircar & Ty Turley & Peter van der Windt & Maarten Voors, 2018. "Know your neighbor: The impact of social context on fairness behavior," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-11, April.
    2. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    3. Linda Kamas & Anne Preston & Sandy Baum, 2008. "Altruism in individual and joint-giving decisions: What's gender got to do with it?," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 23-50.
    4. Liqi Zhu & Gerd Gigerenzer & Gang Huangfu, 2013. "Psychological Traces of China's Socio-Economic Reforms in the Ultimatum and Dictator Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-6, August.
    5. SeEun Jung & Radu Vranceanu, 2017. "Gender Interaction in Teams: Experimental Evidence on Performance and Punishment Behavior," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 33, pages 95-126.
    6. Chesney, Thomas & Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Hoffmann, Robert, 2009. "Virtual world experimentation: An exploratory study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 618-635, October.
    7. Castillo, Marco E. & Cross, Philip J., 2008. "Of mice and men: Within gender variation in strategic behavior," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 421-432, November.
    8. Boschini, Anne & Muren, Astri & Persson, Mats, 2012. "Constructing gender differences in the economics lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 741-752.
    9. Valerio Capraro & Hélène Barcelo, 2021. "Punishing defectors and rewarding cooperators: Do people discriminate between genders?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 19-32, September.
    10. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    11. Hernandez-Arenaz, Iñigo & Iriberri, Nagore, 2018. "Women ask for less (only from men): Evidence from bargaining in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 192-214.
    12. Kinnl, Klara & Möller, Jakob & Walter, Anna, 2023. "Borrowed Plumes:," Department of Economics Working Paper Series 345, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    13. Jussi Palomäki & Jeff Yan & David Modic & Michael Laakasuo, 2016. ""To Bluff like a Man or Fold like a Girl?" – Gender Biased Deceptive Behavior in Online Poker," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-13, July.
    14. Muriel Niederle, 2014. "Gender," NBER Working Papers 20788, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Pamela Schmitt & Kurtis Swope & Robert Shupp & Justin Mayer, 2004. "Personality Preferences and Pre-Commitment: Behavioral Explanations in Ultimatum Games," Departmental Working Papers 6, United States Naval Academy Department of Economics.
    16. Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Hoffmann, Robert & Jones, Martin & Williams, Geoffrey, 2009. "An economic anatomy of culture: Attitudes and behaviour in inter- and intra-national ultimatum game experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 732-744, October.
    17. 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.
    18. Ben-Ner, Avner & Kramer, Amit & Levy, Ori, 2008. "Economic and hypothetical dictator game experiments: Incentive effects at the individual level," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1775-1784, October.
    19. Güth Werner & Sutter Matthias, 2003. "Fairness in the Mail and Opportunism in the Internet: A Newspaper Experiment on Ultimatum Bargaining," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 243-265, May.
    20. Kinnl, Klara & Möller, Jakob & Walter, Anna, 2023. "Borrowed Plumes: The Gender Gap in Claiming Credit for Teamwork," Department for Strategy and Innovation Working Paper Series 01/2023, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.

    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:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:6172-:d:570426. 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.