The Influence of Mortality Salience on Cooperative Behavior in the Prisoner’s Dilemma James Svolos, Odalys Urena, and Tekhara Watson Penn State Erie, The Behrend College Presented at The Western Pennsylvania Undergraduate Psychology Conference Contact Information: Abstract Reminders of our own death create the potential for a paralyzing terror which alters one’s behavior. The current study examined the effects that morality salience had on cooperative behavior. Participants were induced with either morality salience or exam anxiety. Participants played the Prisoners’ Dilemma (PD) game, where they either had the opportunity to cooperate or defect to earn points. The money earned could be donated to either a local (in- group) charity or international (out-group) charity. We found that priming with mortality salience would result in more pro-social behaviors. We did not find that participants in the morality salience group will donate more money to charity (especially to the in-group). Reminders of mortality lead individuals to cling more to their community. Discussion Method Participants 64 participants, 50% female, M Age = 20 Mortality Salience Induction Write down as specifically as you can, what you think will happen to you as you physically die and once you are physically dead. Exam Salience Induction Write down as specifically as you can, what happens to you as you take the exam. Filler Tasks Rosenberg Self-Esteem, PANAS-X, Comprehension Test Debriefing Participants debriefed one at a time, 2 dollars Opportunity to donate winnings Method 1: Cans were placed on debriefing table were not mentioned. Method 2: A researcher was asking for donations to the Boys and Girls Club outside of the laboratory. Introduction Terror Management Theory Humans are similar to animals in that we drive for self-preservation. Humans differ because we have the ability of self-awareness and thoughts which enables us to be aware of our impending death. Terror management theory is based on cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker’s efforts account for the motivational underpinnings of human behavior (Cohen, Solomon, et al. 2006). The Terror Management Theory involves two defense mechanisms: the cultural worldview validation and self-esteem. The cultural worldview validation is the source of meaning and value, there is a purpose to our lives and we have personal value. Self-esteem is the feeling of being of primary value. When one believes that they serve a higher purpose, and by adhering to the culture’s ideals, it makes individuals secure about their purpose of life. In the closing months of the 2004 Presidential Election, John Kerry had a slight lead over President Bush. A video was released by Osama Bin Laden a month before the election. After the video release, the polls showed support increased for President Bush and his strong counter-terror policies (Landau, Solomon, & Arndt, 2008). Mortality Salience Research Mortality Salience can be primed by asking people to write about their own death or by priming with death related words or pictures. Participants read campaign statements by charismatic, task-oriented, and relationship-oriented candidates. When death was salient preference for the charismatic candidate increased (Cohen, Solomon, & Maxfield, 2006). Subliminally primed with either the word death or field, participants then were asked to classify a series of pictures as either English (out- group) or Scottish (in-group). Participants excluded targets that looked more like out-group and conveyed more negative, stereotypical judgments of the English when death was salient (Castano. 2008). Participants read an essay written by a radical Muslim student that was hostile towards Western civilization. When death was salient, participants showed the cultural worldview defense by devaluating the content of the message and decreasing support for the civil rights of anti-Western individuals (Norenzayan, Dar-Nimrod, Hanse, Proulx. 2009). Pro-Social Behavior Pro-social behavior occurs when an individual performs a self-less act, such as giving to charity or helping a disabled individual Most studies show the negative aspects of mortality salience, however, a recent study showed that being induced with MS increased pro-social behavior (Tremayne, & Curtis, 2006). As hypothesized, when induced with mortality salience participants demonstrated more cooperative behaviors. Cooperating on the prisoners dilemma game benefits both individuals, cementing the bonds between college students faced with the same expectations. Only 45% of partcipants who were in the indirect donation condition donated to the charities in comparison to 72% in the direct donation condition. However, mortality salience did not significantly influence donations. It is possible that the influence of mortality salience diminished once the experiment was over. Alternatively, the charities may not have been personally meaningful since a large number of students were not from the region. Personality type may also play a role. Those who are more agreeable and conscientious may also be more likely to give to charities. This may interact with mortality salience. One limitation of the study is that the laboratory task lacked ecological validity. Future work could take place in a more naturalistic setting. Mortality salience has a powerful influence on our lives. On a personal level, mortality salience could influence whether or not we choose to cooperate with others. Politically, mortality salience impacts how we vote. We favor candidates who are more charismatic and who we feel will better protect our country. On a global scale mortality salience influences how we feel about Muslims on the other side of world. It may make us less empathetic toward foreign crisis. The news media and political consultants understand this effect and personal awareness will make us all more resistant to its influence. Prisoner’s Dilemma References Castano, E., (2003). In case of death, cling to the in-group. European Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 34, Cohen, F., Solomon, S., Maxfield, M. (2006). The effects of mortality salience on evaluation of charismatic, task-oriented, and relationship-oriented leaders. Landau, M., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., Cohen, F., Pyszczynski, T., Ardnt, J., Miller, C., Ogilvie, D., Cook, A. (2004). Deliver us from evil: the effects of mortality salience and reminders of 9/11 on support for president George w. Bush. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, Norenzayan, A., Dar-Nimrod, I., Hanse, G., Proulx, T. (2009). Mortality salience and religion: Divergent effects on the defense of cultural worldvies for the religious and the non-religious. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, Tremayne, K, & Curtis, G.J. (2006). Cooperative behaviour in a prisoners dilemma – a terror management perspective. SELF Research Centre. Design DEATH EXAM DEATH EXAM FILLER TASKS PRISONER’S DILEMMA PAYMENT POSSIBLE DONATION Acknowledgements This research was made possible by the Penn State Behrend Undergraduate Research Grant. Special thanks to our research advisor Dr. Dawn Blasko. Figure 3 Indirect Donations Prisoner’s Dilemma is an interactive game that is used to determine pro-social behavior when mortality salience is induced. Using the Prisoner’s Dilemma, we examined how pro-social an individual becomes when death was salient. Participants were given three “A” cards and three “B” cards. Each round the participants made a decision to either cooperate by placing down an “A,” or defect on their opponent by placing down a “B.” Defecting on an opponent led to more points. However, the words “cooperate”, “defect”, or Prisoner’s Dilemma were never said, it was simply referred to as “the game”, “A”, or “B”. SCORING CHART POINTS RECEIVED AB-10 BB0 AA+5 BA+10 Figure 1 Mean Cooperative Behaviors Boys and Girls Club Erie Hope for Africa Figure 1. The Mortality Salience group showed significantly more cooperative behaviors than control group, t (62) = 3.04, p =.003 Figure 3. Method 1 for collecting charitable donations did not show significantly higher donations by the Mortality Salience group to the Boys and Girls Club, t 62) = 1.50, p =.297 or the Hope for Africa, t (62) =.675, p =.50 Figure 2. Mortality Salience pairings showed a significantly higher number of cooperative behaviors than the game pairings with both participants induced with the control, t (42) = 2.36, p =.023 Figure 4. Method 2 for collecting charitable donations did not show significantly higher donations from the Morality Salience group than the control t (16) =.094, p =.926