Learned Generosity? A Field Experiment with Parents and Their Children

An active area of research within the social sciences concerns the underlying motivation for sharing scarce resources and engaging in other pro-social actions. We develop a theoretical framework that sheds light on the developmental origins of social preferences by providing mechanisms through which parents transmit preferences for generosity to their children. Then, we conduct a field experiment with nearly 150 3-5 year old children and their parents, measuring (1) whether child and parent generosity is correlated, (2) whether children are influenced by their parents when making sharing decisions and (3) whether parents model generosity to children. We observe no correlation of independently measured parent and child sharing decisions at this young age. Yet, we find that apart from those choosing an equal allocation of resources between themselves and another child, children adjust their behaviors to narrow the gap with their parent's or other adult's choice. We find that fathers, and parents of initially generous children, increase their sharing when informed that their child will be shown their choice

Dictator Games: A Meta Study

Over the last 25 years, more than a hundred dictator game experiments have been published. This meta study summarizes the evidence. Exploiting the fact that most experiments had to fix parameters they did not intend to test, the meta study explores a rich set of control variables for multivariate analysis. It shows that Tobit models (assuming that dictators would even want to take money) and hurdle models (assuming that the decision to give a positive amount is separate from the choice of amount, conditional on giving) outperform mere meta-regression and OLS

Sex differences in human gregariousness

Research on human sociality rarely includes kinship, social structure, sex, and familiarity, even though these variables influence sociality in non-human primates. However, cross-cultural ethnographic and observational studies with humans indicate that, beginning after age 5 years, males and females form differing social structures with unrelated individuals in a community. Specifically, compared with females, human males exhibit greater tolerance for and form larger, interconnected groups of peers which we term “gregariousness.” To examine sex differences in gregariousness early in life when children first interact with peers without adult supervision, 3- to 6-year-old children were given the choice to enter one of three play areas: an empty one, one with an adult, or one with a familiar, same-sex peer. More males than females initially chose the play area with the same-sex peer, especially after age 5 years. Sex differences in gregariousness with same-sex peers likely constitute one facet of human sociality

Sex Differences in the Value of Parents versus Same-Sex Peers

The current research examined the hypothesis that males derive greater benefits than females do from cooperation with same-sex peers versus parents. In Study 1, 194 children, early adolescents, older adolescents, and adults from Brussels, Belgium predicted whether parents or same-sex peers would provide more benefits to a typical individual of their same age and sex. Results showed that at all four age levels, compared with females, males predicted that same-sex peers would provide more benefits relative to parents. Study 2 was designed to examine which benefits same-sex peers relative to parents provide more for males than females. In Study 2, 50 young adults from Montreal, Canada were asked to report to what extent same-sex peers and parents satisfied physical needs, fulfilled socioemotional needs, and helped with acquiring societal skills over the past year. Males more than females reported that same-sex peers relative to parents satisfied socioemotional needs and helped with the acquisition of societal skills. Discussion revolves around the hypothesized differential relations of males and females to families versus same-sex peers

High status males invest more than high status females in lower status same-sex collaborators

Studies on human cooperation using economic games rarely include ecologically relevant factors. In studies on non-human primates however, both status and sex typically influence patterns of cooperation. Across primate species, high status individuals are more likely to cooperate, though this depends on the species-specific social structure of each sex. Based on human social structure, we predict that higher status males who interact more in hierarchical groups than females, will invest more than high status females in valued same-sex peers after successful cooperation. Across three studies, 187 male and 188 female participants cooperated with a (fictitious) same-sex partner who varied in competence. Participants then divided a reward between themselves and their partner. High status was induced in three different ways in each study, social influence, leadership and power. No overall sex difference in reward sharing was observed. Consistent with the hypothesis however, across all three studies, high status males invested more than high status females in cooperative partners, suggesting that high status males intuitively evaluate sharing rewards with same-sex partners as more beneficial

Strength determines coalitional strategies in humans

Coalitions enhance survival and reproductive success in many social species, yet they generate contradictory impulses. Whereas a coalition increases the probability of successfully obtaining rewards for its members, it typically requires a division of rewards among members, thereby diminishing individual benefits. Non-human primate data indicate that coalition formation is more likely when an individual's probability of success is low when competing alone. No comparable studies exist for humans. Here we show using a computerized competitive game that humans exhibit a systematic, intuitive strategy for coalition formation based on their own and others' levels of perceived strength, a pattern that resembles coalition formation in chimpanzees, Pan troglodytes. Despite equal expected pay-offs for all strategies, subjects were more likely to form coalitions as their own level of perceived strength waned. Those chosen as coalition partners tended to be stronger individuals or arbitrarily designated ‘friends’. Results suggest a heuristic for human coalitionary decisions that rests on the perception of relative power rather than on the assessment of pay-offs

Greater Discomfort as a Proximate Cause of Sex Differences in Competition

The research was designed to examine whether females exhibit greater discom- fort than males in competitive contexts, which could account for females’ greater avoidance of direct competition. In Study 1, 40 groups of 4 same-sex children from kindergarten or Grade 4 were asked to chose one leader for their groups. Although no sex differences were found in level of participation or length of negotiations during the process of leadership selection, females were found to exhibit significantly more discomfort than males. In Study 2, a new method was employed in which kindergarten and Grade 4 same-sex dyads competed by playing identical games. No sex differences were found in level of discomfort while the children played the games and a barrier prevented the children from communicating. After the games were over and the barrier removed, however, females displayed higher levels of discomfort than males both while waiting for the outcome of the competition and after the winner had been announced. Together, these studies provide consistent evidence that females exhibit higher levels of discomfort than males when competing directly with same-sex peers. One plausible proximate reason for sex differences in engagement in direct competition is females’ more negative emotional response