The Amplifying Role of Need in Giving Decisions

Hamilton's rule predicts that altruism should depend on costs incurred and benefits provided, but these depend on the relative needs of the donor and recipient. Rewriting Hamilton's rule to account for relative need suggests an amplifying effect of need on relatedness, but not necessarily other relationship qualities. In a reanalysis of three studies of social discounting and a new replication, we find that relative need amplifies the effects of relatedness on giving in two samples of U.S. adults recruited online, but not U.S. undergraduates or Indian adults recruited online. Among U.S. online participants, the effect of genetic kinship was greater when the partner was perceived to be in higher need than when in lower need. In the other samples, relatedness and greater partner need were associated with greater giving, but the effect of relatedness on giving was not significantly amplified by need. Need never amplified the effect of social closeness on giving, although it did diminish the effect of closeness in U.S. undergraduates, likely reflecting a ceiling effect. These results confirm predictions from a modification of Hamilton's rule in a sample of U.S. adults, but raise important questions about why they hold in some samples but not others. They also illustrate the importance of understanding how contextual factors, such as relative need, can moderate the importance of common variables used in evolutionary cost-benefit analyses.National Science Foundation - Program in Cultural Anthropology, Social Psychology Program [BCS-1150813]; National Science Foundation - Program in Decision, Risk, and Management Sciences [BCS-1150813]; John Templeton Foundation12 month embargo; published online: 8 November 2018This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

To Which World Regions Does the Valence-Dominance Model of Social Perception Apply?

Over the past 10 years, Oosterhof and Todorov’s valence–dominance model has emerged as the most prominent account of how people evaluate faces on social dimensions. In this model, two dimensions (valence and dominance) underpin social judgements of faces. Because this model has primarily been developed and tested in Western regions, it is unclear whether these findings apply to other regions. We addressed this question by replicating Oosterhof and Todorov’s methodology across 11 world regions, 41 countries and 11,570 participants. When we used Oosterhof and Todorov’s original analysis strategy, the valence–dominance model generalized across regions. When we used an alternative methodology to allow for correlated dimensions, we observed much less generalization. Collectively, these results suggest that, while the valence–dominance model generalizes very well across regions when dimensions are forced to be orthogonal, regional differences are revealed when we use different extraction methods and correlate and rotate the dimension reduction solution