Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 May 7;277(1686):1315-23.
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.1900. Epub 2009 Dec 23.

Eyes are on us, but nobody cares: are eye cues relevant for strong reciprocity?

Affiliations

Eyes are on us, but nobody cares: are eye cues relevant for strong reciprocity?

Ernst Fehr et al. Proc Biol Sci. .

Abstract

Strong reciprocity is characterized by the willingness to altruistically reward cooperative acts and to altruistically punish norm-violating, defecting behaviours. Recent evidence suggests that subtle reputation cues, such as eyes staring at subjects during their choices, may enhance prosocial behaviour. Thus, in principle, strong reciprocity could also be affected by eye cues. We investigate the impact of eye cues on trustees' altruistic behaviour in a trust game and find zero effect. Neither the subjects who are classified as prosocial nor the subjects who are classified as selfish respond to these cues. In sharp contrast to the irrelevance of subtle reputation cues for strong reciprocity, we find a large effect of explicit, pecuniary reputation incentives on the trustees' prosociality. Trustees who can acquire a good reputation that benefits them in future interactions honour trust much more than trustees who cannot build a good reputation. These results cast doubt on hypotheses suggesting that strong reciprocity is easily malleable by implicit reputation cues not backed by explicit reputation incentives.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Trustee decision screen. (a) Baseline background. (b) Eyespots background.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Trustees' mean back-transfers. (a) Over time across treatment conditions; error bars represent s.e. on matching group level (n = 24). Solid line, baseline; dashed line, eyespots; dotted line, explicit. (b) Per investment level across treatment conditions.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bardsley N.2008Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact? Exp. Econ. 11, 122–133 (doi:10.1007/s10683-007-9172-2) - DOI
    1. Bateson M., Nettle D., Roberts G.2006Cues of being watched enhance co-operation in a real-world setting. Biol. Lett. 2, 412–414 (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2006.0509) - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bowles S., Gintis H.2004The evolution of strong reciprocity: co-operation in heterogeneous populations. Theoret. Popul. Biol. 65, 17–28 (doi:10.1016/j.tpb.2003.07.001) - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boyd R. T., Richerson P.2005The origin and evolution of cultures Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
    1. Boyd R., Gintis H., Bowles S., Richerson P. J.2003The evolution of altruistic punishment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 3531–3535 (doi:10.1073/pnas.0630443100) - DOI - PMC - PubMed