The watching eyes effect in the Dictator Game: it's not how much you give, it's being seen to give something

Abstract In a classic study, Haley and Fessler showed that displaying subtle eye-like stimuli caused participants to behave more generously in the Dictator Game. Since their paper was published, there have been both successful replications and null results reported in the literature. However, it is important to clarify that two logically separable effects were found in their original experiment: watching eyes made the mean donation higher, and also increased the probability of donating something rather than nothing. Here, we report a replication study with 118 participants, in which we found that watching eyes significantly increased the probability of donating something, but did not increase the mean donation. Results did not depend on the sex of the participants or the sex of the eyes. We also present a meta-analysis of the seven studies of watching eye effects in the Dictator Game published to date. Combined, these studies total 887 participants, and show that although watching eyes do not reliably increase mean donations, they do reliably increase the probability of donating something rather than nothing (combined odds ratio 1.39). We conclude that the watching eyes effect in the Dictator Game is robust, but its interpretation may require refinement. Rather than making people directionally more generous, it may be that watching eyes reduce variation in social behavior.

[1]  Gary E. Bolton,et al.  An Experimental Test for Gender Differences in Beneficent Behavior , 1995 .

[2]  S. Kitayama,et al.  Minimal Social Cues in the Dictator Game , 2009 .

[3]  Terence C Burnham,et al.  Engineering Human Cooperation , 2007, Human nature.

[4]  Kai Hiraishi,et al.  Erratum to: "An eye-like painting enhances the expectation of a good reputation" [Evol Hum Behav 2011; 32(3):166-71] , 2011 .

[5]  R. Bergmüller,et al.  Images of Eyes Enhance Investments in a Real-Life Public Good , 2012, PloS one.

[6]  Kai Hiraishi,et al.  An eye-like painting enhances the expectation of a good reputation. , 2011 .

[7]  Pat Barclay.  Trustworthiness and competitive altruism can also solve the ''tragedy of the commons'' , 2004 .

[8]  D. Perrett,et al.  Effects of sexual dimorphism on facial attractiveness , 1998, Nature.

[9]  R. Bull,et al.  The Influences of Eye-Gaze, Style of Dress, and Locality on the Amounts of Money Donated to a Charity , 1981 .

[10]  M. Bateson,et al.  Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting , 2006, Biology Letters.

[11]  Robert Kurzban,et al.  The Social Psychophysics of Cooperation: Nonverbal Communication in a Public Goods Game , 2001 .

[12]  Catherine C. Eckel,et al.  Are Women Less Selfish Than Men?: Evidence From Dictator Experiments , 1998 .

[13]  D. Nettle,et al.  Eye Images Increase Charitable Donations: Evidence From an Opportunistic Field Experiment in a Supermarket , 2012 .

[14]  G. Hardin,et al.  The Tragedy of the Commons , 1968, Green Planet Blues.

[15]  M. Milinski,et al.  Reputation helps solve the ‘tragedy of the commons’ , 2002, Nature.

[16]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[17]  Bernard Tiddeman,et al.  Prototyping and Transforming Facial Textures for Perception Research , 2001, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[18]  N. Raihani,et al.  A positive effect of flowers rather than eye images in a large-scale, cross-cultural dictator game , 2012, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[19]  Alexander K. Koch,et al.  Giving in Dictator Games: Regard for Others or Regard by Others? , 2005, Southern Economic Journal.

[20]  D. Fessler,et al.  Nobody's watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. , 2005 .

[21]  M. Marks.  Computer-Graphic Facial Reconstruction , 2005 .

[22]  G. Roberts,et al.  Cooperators benefit through reputation-based partner choice in economic games , 2010, Biology Letters.

[23]  S. West,et al.  Resistance to extreme strategies, rather than prosocial preferences, can explain human cooperation in public goods games , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[24]  Mathias Ekström.  Do watching eyes affect charitable giving? Evidence from a field experiment , 2012 .

[25]  Pierrick Bourrat,et al.  Surveillance Cues Enhance Moral Condemnation , 2011, Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior.

[26]  E. Fehr,et al.  Eyes are on us, but nobody cares: are eye cues relevant for strong reciprocity? , 2009, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[27]  J. Keller,et al.  Vigilant Self–Regulation, Cues of being Watched and Cooperativeness , 2011 .

[28]  Keise Izuma.  The social neuroscience of reputation , 2012, Neuroscience Research.

[29]  M. Milinski,et al.  Cooperation through image scoring in humans. , 2000, Science.

[30]  Masanori Takezawa,et al.  Perception of human face does not induce cooperation in darkness , 2011 .

[31]  Daniel Nettle,et al.  Effects of eye images on everyday cooperative behavior: a field experiment , 2011 .

[32]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[33]  Brian Hare,et al.  Does Involuntary Neural Activation Increase Public Goods Contributions , 2007 .

[34]  E. Fehr,et al.  Altruistic punishment in humans , 2002, Nature.