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

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

Heart versus Head: Differential Bodily Feedback Causally Alters Economic Decision-making

Metaphorically, altruistic acts, such as monetary donations, are said to be driven by the heart, whereas sound financial investments are guided by reason, embodied by the head. In a unique experiment, we tested the effects of these bodily metaphors using biofeedback and an incentivized economic decision-making paradigm. Participants played a repeated investment game with a simulated partner, alternating between tactical investor and altruistic investee. When making decisions, participants received counterbalanced visual feedback from their own or a simulated partner’s heart or head, as well as no feedback. As investor, participants transferred a greater proportion of their endowments when exposed to visual feedback from their own head than to feedback from their own heart or no feedback at all. These effects were not observed when the source of the feedback was the simulated partner. As investee, heart feedback predicted greater altruistic returns than head or no feedback, but this effect did not differ based on source (own vs partner). Consistent with a dual-process framework, we suggest that people may be encouraged to invest more or be more altruistic when receiving bodily feedback from conceptually diametric sources