Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Nadav Klein; Igor Grossmann; Ayse K. Uskul; Alexandra A. Kraus; Nicholas Epley (2015)
Publisher: Society for Judgment and Decision Making
Journal: Judgment and Decision Making
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: generosity, social judgment, prosociality, Psychology, culture, prosociality, selfishness, generosity, social judgment, reputation, culture, supererogation., HB71-74, BF1-990, Economics as a science, reputation, supererogation.NAKeywords, selfishness
Cultures differ in many important ways, but one trait appears to be universally valued: prosociality. For one's reputation, around the world, it pays to be nice to others. However, recent research with American participants finds that evaluations of prosocial actions are asymmetric---relatively selfish actions are evaluated according to the magnitude of selfishness but evaluations of relatively generous actions are less sensitive to magnitude. Extremely generous actions are judged roughly as positively as modestly generous actions, but extremely selfish actions are judged much more negatively than modestly selfish actions (Klein and Epley, 2014). Here we test whether this asymmetry in evaluations of prosociality is culture-specific. Across 7 countries, 1,240 participants evaluated actors giving various amounts of money to a stranger. Along with relatively minor cross-cultural differences in evaluations of generous actions, we find cross-cultural similarities in the asymmetry in evaluations of prosociality. We discuss implications for how reputational inferences can enable the cooperation necessary for successful societies.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Balliet, D. & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013). Trust, punishment, and cooperation across 18 societies: A metaanalysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 363- 379.
    • Barclay, P. (2004). Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve the “tragedy of the commons.” Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 209-220.
    • Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M .R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497- 529.
    • Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (2003). Origins of human cooperation. In P. Hammerstein (ed.), The genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation (pp. 429-443). Dahlem Workshop Reports: Berlin, Germany.
    • Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
    • Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621.
    • DeWall, C. N., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Alone but feeling no pain: Effects of social exclusion on physical pain tolerance and pain threshold, affective forecasting, and interpersonal empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1-15.
    • Fehr, E. & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817-868.
    • Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
    • Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77-83.
    • Gray, K., Ward, A. F., & Norton, M. I. (2014). Paying it forward: Generalized reciprocity and the limits of generosity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 247-254.
    • Grossmann, I. & Varnum, M. E. W. (2015). Social structure, infectious diseases, disasters, secularism, and cultural change in America. Psychological Science, 26, 311-324.
    • Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1-16.
    • Henrich, J., Ensminger, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., Cardenas, J. C., Gurven, M., Gwako, E., Henrich, N., Lesorogol, C., Marlowe, F., Tracer, D., & Ziker, J. (2010). Markets, religion, community size, and the evolution of fairness and punishment. Science, 327, 1480-1484.
    • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61-135.
    • Herrmann, B., Thöni, C., & Gächter, S. (2008). Antisocial punishment across societies. Science, 319, 1362-1367.
    • Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGrawHill.
    • Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J. (2010). General evaluability theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 343-355.
    • Inglehart, R. & Norris, P (2003). Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Klein, N. & Epley, N. (2014). The topography of generosity:zhang Asymmetric evaluations of prosocial actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 2366-2379.
    • Loewenstein, G. F., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 426-441.
    • Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologist, 54, 1053-1060.
    • Morewedge, C. K., Kassam, K. S., Hsee, C. K., & Caruso, E. M. (2009). Duration sensitivity depends on stimulus familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 177-186.
    • Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic vs. analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291-310.
    • Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366.
    • Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355-374.
    • Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35-57.
    • Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 56-66.
    • Uskul, A. K., Kitayama, S. & Nisbett, R. E. (2008). Ecocultural basis of cognition: Farmers and fishermen are more holistic than herders. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 8552-8556.
    • Veselý, S. (2015). Elicitation of normative and fairness judgments: Do incentives matter? Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 191-197.
    • Willer, R., Feinberg, M., Irwin, K., Schultz, M., & Simpson, B. (2010). The trouble with invisible men: How reputational concerns motivate generosity. In S. Hitlin & S. Vaisey (eds.) The Handbook of the sociology of morality (pp. 315-330). New York: Springer.
    • Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: Effects of being ignored over the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748 - 762.
    • Willis, J. & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: Making up your mind after 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17, 592-598.
    • Wojciszke, B., & Abele, A. E. (2008). The primacy of communion over agency and its reversals in evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1139-1147.
    • Zahavi, A. & Zahavi, A. (1997). The handicap principle: A missing piece of Darwin's puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article