Heritability of decisions and outcomes of public goods games

Prosociality is one of the most distinctive features of human beings but there are individual differences in cooperative behavior. Employing the twin method, we examined the heritability of cooperativeness and its outcomes on public goods games using a strategy method. In two experiments (Study 1 and Study 2), twin participants were asked to indicate (1) how much they would contribute to a group when they did not know how much the other group members were contributing, and (2) how much they would contribute if they knew the contributions of others. Overall, the heritability estimates were relatively small for each type of decision, but heritability was greater when participants knew that the others had made larger contributions. Using registered decisions in Study 2, we conducted seven Monte Carlo simulations to examine genetic and environmental influences on the expected game payoffs. For the simulated one-shot game, the heritability estimates were small, comparable to those of game decisions. For the simulated iterated games, we found that the genetic influences first decreased, then increased as the numbers of iterations grew. The implication for the evolution of individual differences in prosociality is discussed.

[1]  D. Buss.  How Can Evolutionary Psychology Successfully Explain Personality and Individual Differences? , 2009, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[2]  R. Trivers.  The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism , 1971, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[3]  A. Thapar,et al.  Methodology for Genetic Studies of Twins and Families , 1993 .

[4]  Keiko Ishii,et al.  Public Goods Games in Japan , 2008, Human nature.

[5]  James E. King,et al.  Evolutionary Personality Psychology , 2015, Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences.

[6]  Soo Hong Chew,et al.  Genetics of Human Social Behavior , 2010, Neuron.

[7]  Robert Kurzban,et al.  Experiments investigating cooperative types in humans: a complement to evolutionary theory and simulations. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  R. Plomin.  Behavioral genetics. , 1991, Research publications - Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease.

[9]  Neal Bukeavich,et al.  Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed , 2006 .

[10]  M. Nowak.  Five Rules for the Evolution of Cooperation , 2006, Science.

[11]  C. Boehm,et al.  Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior , 1999 .

[12]  Ernst Fehr,et al.  Are people conditionally cooperative , 2000 .

[13]  A. Navarro.  Genoeconomics: Promises and Caveats for a New Field , 2009, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[14]  Robert Kurzban,et al.  Individual differences in cooperation in a circular public goods game , 2001 .

[15]  I. Mysterud.  Unto others: The evolution and psychology of unselfish behavior , 1999 .

[16]  U. Fischbacher,et al.  The nature of human altruism , 2003, Nature.

[17]  Dorret I Boomsma,et al.  Fitting Genetic Models Using Markov Chain Monte Carlo Algorithms With BUGS , 2006, Twin Research and Human Genetics.

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

[19]  James H. Fowler,et al.  Heritability of cooperative behavior in the trust game , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  S. Ooki,et al.  Zygosity diagnosis of twins by questionnaire for twins' mothers. , 1993, Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae.

[21]  Robert Lawless,et al.  Book Review: Jared Diamond. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York, NY: Viking Penguin, 2005. , 2009 .

[22]  Eric Turkheimer,et al.  Three Laws of Behavior Genetics and What They Mean , 2000 .

[23]  Jaap J. A. Denissen,et al.  The evolutionary genetics of personality , 2007 .

[24]  Shoko Sasaki,et al.  Two Cohort and Three Independent Anonymous Twin Projects at the Keio Twin Research Center (KoTReC) , 2013, Twin Research and Human Genetics.

[25]  Magnus Johannesson,et al.  Genetic Variation in Preferences for Giving and Risk Taking , 2009 .

[26]  J. Diamond.  Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed , 2005 .

[27]  J. Ando,et al.  Maintenance of genetic variation in personality through control of mental mechanisms: a test of trust, extraversion, and agreeableness☆ , 2008 .

[28]  Toshio Yamagishi,et al.  In Search of Homo economicus , 2014, Psychological science.

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

[30]  W. Hamilton,et al.  The evolution of cooperation. , 1984, Science.

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

[32]  U. Fischbacher,et al.  Are People Conditionally Cooperative? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment , 2001 .

[33]  Magnus Johannesson,et al.  Experimental Game Theory and Behavior Genetics , 2009, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[34]  Ian S. Penton-Voak,et al.  The watching eyes effect in the Dictator Game: it's not how much you give, it's being seen to give something , 2013 .

[35]  J. Silk,et al.  Evolutionary foundations of human prosocial sentiments , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[37]  M. Johannesson,et al.  Heritability of ultimatum game responder behavior , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.