Reciprocity on the hardwood: passing patterns among professional basketball players.

Past theory and research view reciprocal resource sharing as a fundamental building block of human societies. Most studies of reciprocity dynamics have focused on trading among individuals in laboratory settings. But if motivations to engage in these patterns of resource sharing are powerful, then we should observe forms of reciprocity even in highly structured group environments in which reciprocity does not clearly serve individual or group interests. To this end, we investigated whether patterns of reciprocity might emerge among teammates in professional basketball games. Using data from logs of National Basketball Association (NBA) games of the 2008-9 season, we estimated a series of conditional logistic regression models to test the impact of different factors on the probability that a given player would assist another player in scoring a basket. Our analysis found evidence for a direct reciprocity effect in which players who had "received" assists in the past tended to subsequently reciprocate their benefactors. Further, this tendency was time-dependent, with the probability of repayment highest soon after receiving an assist and declining as game time passed. We found no evidence for generalized reciprocity - a tendency to "pay forward" assists - and only very limited evidence for indirect reciprocity - a tendency to reward players who had sent others many assists. These findings highlight the power of reciprocity to shape human behavior, even in a setting characterized by extensive planning, division of labor, quick decision-making, and a focus on inter-group competition

Popular Support for Balancing Equity and Efficiency in Resource Allocation: A Case Study in Online Advertising to Increase Welfare Program Awareness

Algorithmically optimizing the provision of limited resources is commonplace across domains from healthcare to lending. Optimization can lead to efficient resource allocation, but, if deployed without additional scrutiny, can also exacerbate inequality. Little is known about popular preferences regarding acceptable efficiency-equity trade-offs, making it difficult to design algorithms that are responsive to community needs and desires. Here we examine this trade-off and concomitant preferences in the context of GetCalFresh, an online service that streamlines the application process for California's Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps). GetCalFresh runs online advertisements to raise awareness of their multilingual SNAP application service. We first demonstrate that when ads are optimized to garner the most enrollments per dollar, a disproportionately small number of Spanish speakers enroll due to relatively higher costs of non-English language advertising. Embedding these results in a survey (N = 1,532) of a diverse set of Americans, we find broad popular support for valuing equity in addition to efficiency: respondents generally preferred reducing total enrollments to facilitate increased enrollment of Spanish speakers. These results buttress recent calls to reevaluate the efficiency-centric paradigm popular in algorithmic resource allocation.Comment: This paper will be presented at the 2023 International Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM'23

Judgments of economic fairness are based more on perceived economic mobility than perceived inequality

Are judgments of the fairness of the American economy based on perceptions of economic inequality, mobility, or both? In two experiments, the authors varied information on levels of U.S. inequality and mobility, measuring effects on individuals’ judgments of economic fairness and meritocracy. Although both treatments influenced perceptions of economic fairness and meritocracy, the mobility effect was generally larger. The two treatments did not interact, countering a common claim that high social mobility legitimizes high inequality. Effects on preferences for government action to reduce inequality and increase mobility were weak or nonexistent. Additional conditions that measured, rather than manipulated, inequality and mobility perceptions showed that respondents generally perceived inequality to be very high but were more optimistic about the level of mobility. Our studies suggest that Americans’ optimism about economic mobility does more to mitigate concerns about economic fairness than does underestimation of economic inequality.Sociolog

Inclusive Masculinity in a Fraternal Setting

This ethnographic research uses thirty-two in-depth interviews and two years of par-ticipant observation on a large chapter of a national fraternity to examine the construc-tion of masculinity among heterosexual men. Whereas previous studies of masculine construction maintain that most men in fraternities attempt to bolster their masculinity through the approximation of requisites of hegemonic masculinity, this research shows that there also exists a more inclusive form of masculinity institutionalized in the fra-ternal system: one based on social equality for gay men, respect for women, and racial parity and one in which fraternity men bond over emotional intimacy

The Social Significance of Spirituality: New Perspectives on the Compassion-Altruism Relationship

In the current research we tested a comprehensive model of spirituality, religiosity, compassion, and altruism, investigating the independent effects of spirituality and religiosity on compassion and altruism. We hypothesized that, even though spirituality and religiosity are closely related, spirituality and religiosity would have different and unique associations with compassion and altruism. In Study 1 and 2 we documented that more spiritual individuals experience and show greater compassion. The link between religiosity and compassion was no longer significant after controlling for the impact of spirituality. Compassion has the capacity to motivate people to transcend selfish motives and act altruistically towards strangers. Therefore, we reasoned that spirituality (but not religiosity) would predict altruistic behavior and that compassion would help explain this link. Indeed, in Studies 3, 4, and 5 we found that more spiritual individuals behaved more altruistically in economic choice and decision-making tasks, and that the tendency of spiritual individuals to feel greater compassion mediated the spirituality-to-altruism relationship. In contrast, more religious participants did not consistently feel more compassion nor behave more altruistically. Moreover, in Studies 3 and 4 we found that the broader traits of Agreeableness, Openness, and Extraversion did not help explain why more spiritual individuals behaved more altruistically. Our findings argue that spirituality—above and beyond religiosity—is uniquely associated with greater compassion and enhanced altruism towards strangers.Keywords: altruism, behavioral economics, religion, spirituality, compassio

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Scientifc evidence regularly guides policy decisions1 , with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2 . In April 2020, an infuential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to eforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams fnding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy efectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed efects and there were no efects for highlighting individual benefts or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct diferences in efects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientifc evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.Fil: Ruggeri, Kai. New York Air National Guard; Estados Unidos. Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health; Estados Unidos. University of Cambridge; Estados UnidosFil: Stock, Friederike. Max Planck Institute for Human Development; Alemania. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin; AlemaniaFil: Haslam, S. Alexander. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Capraro, Valerio. Università degli Studi di Milano; ItaliaFil: Boggio, Paulo. Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie; Brasil. National Institute of Science and Technology on Social and Affective Neuroscience; BrasilFil: Ellemers, Naomi. Utrecht University; Países Bajos. University of Utrecht; Países BajosFil: Cichocka, Aleksandra. University Of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Douglas, Karen M.. University Of Kent; Reino UnidoFil: Rand, David G.. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Estados UnidosFil: van der Linden, Sander. University of Cambridge; Estados UnidosFil: Cikara, Mina. Harvard University; Estados UnidosFil: Finkel, Eli J.. Northwestern University; Estados UnidosFil: Druckman, James N.. Northwestern University; Estados UnidosFil: Wohl, Michael J. A.. Carleton University; CanadáFil: Petty, Richard E.. Ohio State University; Estados UnidosFil: Tucker, Joshua A.. University of New York; Estados UnidosFil: Shariff, Azim. University of British Columbia; CanadáFil: Gelfand, Michele. University of Stanford; Estados UnidosFil: Packer, Dominic. Lehigh University; Estados UnidosFil: Jetten, Jolanda. University of Queensland; AustraliaFil: Van Lange, Paul A. M.. Universitat zu Köln; Alemania. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; Países BajosFil: Pennycook, Gordon. Cornell University; Estados UnidosFil: Peters, Ellen. University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Navajas Ahumada, Joaquin Mariano. Universidad Torcuato Di Tella; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Papa, Francesca. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; FranciaFil: Galizzi, Matteo M.. The London School of Economics and Political Science; Reino UnidoFil: Milkman, Katherine L.. University of Pennsylvania; Estados UnidosFil: Petrović, Marija. University of Belgrade; SerbiaFil: Van Bavel, Jay J.. University of New York; Estados UnidosFil: Willer, Robb. University of Stanford; Estados Unido

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions 1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process 2. In April 2020, an influential paper 3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization

Addressing climate change with behavioral science:A global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions' effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior-several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people's initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.</p