Attention to Prescriptive Norms Increases Dictator Game Generosity in Women but not Men: Using the 2D:4D Digit Ratio to Test the Role of Biology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12974/2313-1047.2020.07.2Keywords:
Other-regarding preferences, Altruism, Gender, Digit ratio.Abstract
Some authors propose that gender norms pose divergent effects on generosity, usually being women the gender expected to be kinder. Indeed, some economic experiments show women to be more generous than men in the Dictator Game (DG). Despite some claiming these results to be determined by socialization into gender norms, data do not speak against a biological explanation of sex differences. In fact, there is evidence that DG generosity varies with the level of pre-natal exposure to testosterone and estrogens, as indirectly measured using participants´ 2D:4D digit ratios. In any case, it is unclear whether DG generosity expresses pure altruism or compliance with social norms. Socialization and biological factors may have diverse effects on these two different motivations. In the present study, we aimed at contributing to this discussion. We randomly assigned participants to two independent conditions. In the prescriptive norm condition, participants were incentivized to accurately estimate others´ opinion about the most socially appropriate option in the DG (i.e., the prescriptive norm), and then made their decisions as dictators. Participants in the control conditions made their decisions as dictators without any prior estimation. We found that the normative exercise increased generosity (relative to the control condition) in women but not in men. In a sub-sample, we also measured participants´ 2D:4D digit ratios as a proxy of a socialization-free sex-dimorphic hormonal influence on behavior. We found no evidence that the normative effect of the estimation exercise was modulated by participants´ digit ratios. In contrast, generosity in the control condition was higher, the more extreme (highest and lowest) the digit ratios were. We conclude in favor of: 1) a socialization-modulated gender effect on responses to prescriptive norms of generosity; and 2) a biological effect of pre-natal hormonal levels on generosity when the norm was not elicited; in this last case, the relationship between pre-natal testosterone and empathic concern might be involved.
References
Aronson E, Wilson TD, Akert RM. Social psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall 2010.
Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology 2004; 55: 591-621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
Bicchieri C. The Grammar of Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2006.
Richerson PJ, Boyd R. Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2005. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226712130.001.0001
Sober E, Wilson DS. Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1998.
Chudek M, Henrich J. Culture-gene coevolution, normpsychology and the emergence of human prosociality.Trends in Cognitive Science 2011; 15(5): 218-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.03.003
Coleman JS. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1990.
Cialdini RB, Trost MR. Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In DT Gilbert, ST Fiske, G Lindzey Eds., The handbook of social psychology. McGraw- Hill 1998; pp. 151-192.
Sripada C, Stich S. A Framework for the Psychology of Norms. In P Carruthers, S Laurence, S Stich Eds.The Innate Mind: Volume 2: Culture and Cognition, 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2007; pp. 281-301. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195310139.003.0017
Bowles S, Gintis H. A cooperative species: Human reciprocity and its evolution. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press 2011. https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691151250.001.0001
Fehr E, Fischbacher U. Social norms and human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2004; 8(4): 185- 190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.007
Fehr E, Fischbacher U, Gächter S. Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement ofsocial norms.Human Nature 2002; 13(1): 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-002-1012-7
De Quervain DJF, Fischbacher U, Treyer V, Schelthammer M, Schnyder U, Buck A, Fehr E. The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science 2004; 305: 1254-1258. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1100735
Ruff CC, Ugazio G, Fehr E. Changing social norm compliance with noninvasive brain stimulation. Science 2013; 342(6157): 482-484. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241399
Gerber AS, Rogers T. Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: Everybody's voting and so should you. The Journal of Politics 2009; 71(1): 178-191. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381608090117
Alm J, Bloomquist KM, McKee M. When You Know Your Neighbour Pays Taxes: Information, Peer Effects and Tax Compliance. Fiscal Studies 2017; 38(4): 587-613. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5890.12111
Kobis NC, van Prooijen JW, Righetti F, Van Lange PAM. "Who doesn't?" The impact of descriptive norms on corruption. PLoS ONE 2015; 10(6): e0131830. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131830
Abbink K, Freidin E, Gangadharan L, Moro R. The effect of social norms on bribe offers. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 2018; 34(3): 457-474. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewy015
Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA. A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1990; 58: 1015-1026. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015
Gino F, Ayal S, Ariely D. Contagion and Differentiation in Unethical Behavior: The Effect of One Bad Apple on the Barrel. Psychological Science 2009; 20(3): 393-398. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02306.x
Cialdini RB, Demaine LJ, Sagarin BJ, Barrett DW, Rhoads K, Winter PL. Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence 2006; 1(1): 3-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510500181459
Engel C. Dictator games: a meta-study. Experimental Economics 2011; 14: 583-610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7
Andreoni J, Bernheim D. Social Image and the 50-50 norm: a theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica 2009; 77(5): 1607-1636. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA7384
Brañas-Garza P, Rodriguez-Lara I, Sanchez A. Humans expect generosity. Nature Scientific Reports 2017; 7: 42446. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42446
Capraro V, http://journal.sjdm.org/17/171107/jdm171107.html - note1 Rand DG. Do the Right Thing: Experimental evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality. Judgment and Decision Making 2018; 13(1): 99-111.
Capraro V, Vanzo A. The power of moral words: Loaded language generates framing effects in the extreme dictator game. Judgment and Decision Making 2019; 14(3): 309-317.
Bilancini E, Boncinelli L, Capraro V, Celadin T, Di Paolo R. "Do the right thing" for whom? An experiment on ingroup favouritism, group assorting and moral suasion. Judgment and Decision Making 2020; 15(2): 182-192. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3486398
Capraro V, Jagfeld G, Klein R, Mul M, van de Pol I. Increasing altruistic and cooperative behaviour with simple moral nudges. Nature Scientific Reports 2019; 9: 11880. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48094-4
Croson R, Gneezy U. Gender Differences in Preferences. Journal of Economic Literature 2009; 47(2): 448-474. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.2.448
Eckel C, Grossman PJ. Men, Women, and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence. Handbook of Experimental Economic Results 2008; 1: 1061-1073. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0722(07)00113-8
Niederle M. A Gender Agenda: A Progress Report on Competitiveness. American Economic Review 2017; 107(5): 115-119. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171066
Brañas-Garza P, Capraro V, Rascón-Ramírez E. Gender differences in altruism on Mechanical Turk: Expectations and actual behaviour. Economics Letters 2018; 170: 19-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2018.05.022
Willer R, Wimer C, Owens LA. What drives the gender gap in charitable giving? Lower empathy leadsmen to give less to poverty relief. Social Science Research 2015; 52: 83-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2014.12.014
Eagly AH, Crowley M. Gender and helping behavior: A metaanalytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological bulletin 1986; 100(3): 283-308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283
Chowdhury SM, Jeon JY, Saha B. Gender Differences in the Giving and Taking Variants of the Dictator Game. Southern Economic Journal 2017; 84: 474-483. https://doi.org/10.1002/soej.12223
Eckel C, Grossman PJ. Are Women Less Selfish Than Men? Evidence from Dictator Experiments. Economic Journal 1998; 108(448): 726-735. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00311
Sharma S. Gender and distributional preferences: Experimental evidence from India. Journal of Economic Psychology 2015; 50: 113-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2015.08.004
Khachatryan K, Dreber A,Von Essen E, Ranehill E. Gender and preferences at a young age: Evidence from Armenia. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2015; 118: 318-332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2015.02.021
Bolton G, Katok E. An experimental test for gender differences in beneficent behavior. Economics Letters 1995; 48(3-4): 287-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1765(94)00621-8
Boschini A, Muren A, Persson M. Constructing gender differences in the economics lab. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2012; 84(3): 741-752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.09.024
Gong B, Yan H, Yang CL. Gender differences in the dictator experiment: evidence from the matrilineal Mosuo and the patriarchal Yi. Experimental Economics 2015; 18: 302-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-014-9403-2
Brañas-Garza P, Espín AM, García-Muñoz T, Kovářík J. Digit ratio (2D : 4D) and prosocial behaviour in economic games: no direct correlation with generosity, bargaining or trustrelated behaviours. Biology Letters 2019; 15: 20190185. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0185
Andreoni J, Vesterlund L. Which Is The Fair Sex? Gender Differences In Altruism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 2001; 116: 293-312. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355301556419
Eagly AH.The his and hers of prosocial behavior: an examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist 2009; 64(8): 644-658. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.644
Wood W, Eagly AH. Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In JM Olson, MP Zanna Eds., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 46. Burlington: Academic Press 2012; pp. 55-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7
Eagly AH. Reporting sex differences. American Psychologist 1987; 42(7): 756-757. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.42.7.755
Ochiai E, Molony B. Asia's New Mothers. Folkestone: Global Oriental 2008. https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9781905246373.i-232
Aguiar F, Brañas-Garza P, Cobo-Reyes R, Jiménez N, Miller L. Are women expected to be more generous? Experimental Economics 2009; 12: 93-98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-008-9199-z
Peysakhovich A, Rand DG. Habits of virtue: Creating norms of cooperation and defection in the laboratory. Management Science 2015; 62(3): 631-647. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2168
Rand DG, Peysakhovich A, Kraft-Todd GT, Newman GE, Wurzbacher O, Nowak MA, Greene JD. Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation. Nature Communications 2014; 5: 3677. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4677
Rand DG. Cooperation, fast and slow: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of social heuristics and self-interested deliberation. Psychological Science 2016; 27(9): 1192-1206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616654455
Rand DG, Brescoll VL, Everett JA, Capraro V, Barcelo H. Social Heuristics and Social Roles: Intuition Favors Altruism for Women but Not for Men. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2016; 145(4): 389-396. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000154
Beech JR, Mackintosh IC. Do differences in sex hormones affect handwriting style? Evidence from digit ratio and sex role identity as determinants of the sex of handwriting. Personality and Individual Differences 2005; 39: 459-468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.01.024
Csathó Á, Osváth A, Bicsák É, Karádi K, Manning JT, Kállai J. Sex role identity related to the ratio of second to fourth digit length in women. Biological Psychology 2003; 62: 147- 156. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0511(02)00127-8
Kastlunger B, Dressler SG, Kirchler E, Mittone L, Voracek M. Sex differences in tax compliance: Differentiating between demographic sex, gender-role orientation, and prenatal masculinization (2D:4D). Journal of Economic Psychology 2010; 31: 542-552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.03.015
Manning JT. Digit ratio: a pointer to fertility, behavior and health. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press 2002.
Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S. The Empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 2004; 34: 163-175. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00
Cecchi F, Duchoslav J. The Effect of Prenatal Stress on Cooperation: Evidence from a Public Goods Game in Post- Conflict Uganda. European Economic Review 2018; 101: 35- 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2017.09.015
Galizzi MM, Nieboer J. Digit ratio (2D:4D) and altruism: evidence from a large, multi-ethnic sample. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 2015; 9: 41. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00041
Parslow E, Ranehill E, Zethraeus N, Blomberg L, von Schoultz B, Lindén Hirschberg A, Johannesson M, Dreber A.The digit ratio (2D:4D) and economic preferences: No robust associations in a sample of 330 women. Journal of the Economic Science Association 2019; doi: 10.1007/s40881- 019-00076-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-019-00076-y
List J. On the interpretation of giving in Dictator Games. Journal of Political Economy 2007; 115(3): 482-493. https://doi.org/10.1086/519249
Hönekopp J, Bartholdt L, Beier L, Liebert A. Second to Fourth Digit Length Ratio (2D:4D) and Adult Sex Hormone Levels: New Data and a Meta-Analytic Review. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2007; 32: 313-321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2007.01.007
Brañas-Garza P, Kovárík J, Neyse L. Second-to fourth digit ratio has a non-monotonic impact on altruism. PloS One 2013; 8(4): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060419
Buser T. Digit ratios, the menstrual cycle and social preferences. Games and Economic Behavior 2012; 76(2): 457-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2012.07.006
Krupka E, Weber RA. The focusing and informational effects of norms on pro-social behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology 2009; 30(3): 307-320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2008.11.005
Neyse L, Brañas-Garza P.Digit Ratio Measurement Guide. MPRA Paper No. 54134 2014. Retrieved from http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/54134/
Miller L, Ubeda P. Are women more sensitive to the decisionmaking context? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 2012; 83: 98-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.06.014
Bem SL. On the utility of alternative procedures for assessing psychological androgyny.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1977; 45:196-205. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.45.2.196
Croson R, Handy F, Shang J. Keeping up with the Joneses: The relationship of perceived descriptive social norms, social information, and charitable giving. Nonprofit Management and Leadership 2009; 19(4): 467-489. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.232
Chapman E, Baron-Cohen S, Auyeung B, Knickmeyer R, Taylor K, Hackett G. Fetal testosterone and empathy: evidence from the empathy quotient (EQ) and the "reading the mind in the eyes" test. Soc Neurosci. 2006; 1(2): 135-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470910600992239
Feldman Hall O, Dalgleish T, Evans D, Mobbs D. Empathic concern drives costly altruism. NeuroImage 2015; 105: 347- 356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.043
Avena S, Via M, Ziv E, Pérez-Stable EJ, Gignoux CR, et al. Heterogeneity in Genetic Admixture across Different Regions of Argentina. PLoS One 2012; 7(4): e34695. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034695
Homburger JR, Moreno-Estrada A, Gignoux CR, Nelson D, Sanchez E, Ortiz-Tello P, et al. Genomic Insights into the Ancestry and Demographic History of South America. PLoS Genet 2015; 11(12): e1005602. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005602
Bosch-Domènech A, Brañas-Garza P, Espín AM. Can exposure to prenatal sex hormones (2D:4D) predict cognitive reflection? Psychoneuroendocrinology 2014; 43: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.01.023
