People may be stingier than thought

A new study suggests people may donate money not out of generosity, but because they simply don't understand how their actions will lead to payoffs down the line.

By

Tia Ghose, LiveScience

Mon, Dec 17 2012 at 7:15 PM

Related Topics:

Research & Innovation, Science

Photo: Felix Mizioznikov/Shutterstock

People may not be as generous to strangers as social scientists previously believed, at least if a new study is any indication.

The findings, published today (Dec. 17) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, may help explain a seemingly irrational behavior: People consistently give money to other people, even when it hurts their own bottom line in an economic game used by scientists to study cooperation.

Those findings suggested that people are naturally generous. But the new study suggests people may donate to the common pool not out of generosity, but because they simply don't understand how their actions will lead to payoffs down the line. The findings suggest these games aren't a great way to understand human generosity, said study author Maxwell Burton-Chellew, a zoologist at the University of Oxford.

"It gets at a big question about how much these economic games capture reality," Burton-Chellew said.

Common fund

In the classic economic experiment called the public goods game, people are given some money, say $10, and have the option of putting some of it into a "public fund." Whatever they put into the pot gets multiplied and shared amongst all the players, including themselves, though depending on the multiplier, they wind up with less money than they started with. The most economically "rational" behavior in this instance would be to put zero dollars into the public fund, but in studies, people consistently put in some of their own money, leaving themselves worse off. [The 10 Things That Make Humans Special]

In the past, researchers have pointed to this behavior as evidence of people's natural propensity to help others.

In the new study, Burton-Chellew and colleagues asked 236 participants to play a standard public goods game. They then had half the participants play a different version of the game, where they were told explicitly how much other members of the group had donated and gotten back in turn.

When the payoffs were broken down, people became miserly and put less into the public fund.

Next, the researchers created a stripped-down, "black-box" version of the game where participants were simply told that they could contribute to a black box and get some non-negative amount of money in return, with the amount determined by a mathematical equation.

The players contributed about the same amount in the black-box version of the game as in the standard game. In other words, the people gave just as much when there was no notion of "public good" or generosity involved.

Are people generous?

The findings suggest that altruism can't explain people's seemingly generous behavior in the public goods game. Instead, they may simply not understand how the payoffs work in these games and thus may be exploring many different strategies as they play, Burton-Chellow told LiveScience.

But the study doesn't rule out the idea that people follow social norms to be generous, only that knowing more about perfect strangers' donations doesn't change your own behavior, said Herbert Gitnis, an economist at the University of Massachusetts, who was not involved in the study.

But if people are told how their money will benefit society — for instance, by helping flood victims in Bangladesh — they will usually give more, he said.

By contrast, if the researchers said, "'If you donate, this person who is now in jail for rape and murder will get extra cigarettes or extra food rations,' nobody will contribute," Gitnis told LiveScience.

Follow LiveScience on Twitter @livescience. We're also on Facebook & Google+.

Related on LiveScience and MNN:

You might also like:

Join the conversation

Comment: 1

Starbuck Dec 19 2012 at 4:45 AM

Offering people a chance to contribute to a fund that will help everyone, but telling them also that they will get back less than they put in doesn't sound like a very sensible way to test altruism as a characteristic of humans. It sounds like a trip to Vegas. There may have been factors in the test that aren't included in this article, but were I asked to contribute to a fund which would help all contributors less that the extent to which they contributed, it just sounds like a disappearing money

.... More

game and I'd think it was a little crazy to toss money into that particular hat. However, it is also true that I would be - and have been on numerous occasions - willing to help another person with no expectation at all, other than seeing that the other person now has something they were in need of. Usually that means a meal or a place to sleep or enough cash to get to the end of the month or some such. And I have known a fair number of people that would behave in similar fashion if they saw a real need and could offer help. I would say that by definition altruism is not focused on the expectation of returns. If it is, then it's something other than altruism.

Log in or register to post comments
Report This Post

MNN - Mother Nature Network

By

Related Topics:

You might also like:

Join the conversation

TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON

NEWSLETTER