Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33097738›Full record

Observational studyScientific reports2020

Stable distribution of reciprocity motives in a population.

Jeroen M van Baar, Felix H Klaassen, Filippo Ricci, Luke J Chang, Alan G Sanfey

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jeroen M van BaarDepartment of Cognitive, Linguistic, and Psychological Sciences, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. jeroenvanbaar@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8567-7931
Felix H KlaassenDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behavior, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9928-8312
Filippo RicciDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behavior, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0103-837X
Luke J ChangDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6621-8120
Alan G SanfeyDonders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behavior, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7421-8294

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evolutionary models show that human cooperation can arise through direct reciprocity relationships. However, it remains unclear which psychological mechanisms proximally motivate individuals to reciprocate. Recent evidence suggests that the psychological motives for choosing to reciprocate trust differ between individuals, which raises the question whether these differences have a stable distribution in a population or are rather an artifact of the experimental task. Here, we combine data from three independent trust game studies to find that the relative prevalence of different reciprocity motives is highly stable across participant samples. Furthermore, the distribution of motives is relatively unaffected by changes to the salient features of the experimental paradigm. Finally, the motive classification assigned by our computational modeling analysis corresponds to the participants' own subjective experience of their psychological decision process, and no existing models of social preference can account for the observed individual differences in reciprocity motives. These findings support the view that reciprocal decision-making is not just regulated by individual differences in 'pro-social' versus 'pro-self' tendencies, but also by trait-like differences across several alternative pro-social motives, whose distribution in a population is stable.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorCultural EvolutionModels, PsychologicalAdultChoice BehaviorComputer SimulationFemaleGames, ExperimentalHumansIndividualityMaleMotivationTrustYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33097738
PMCPMC7584663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.