1. Public Charity as a Proximate Factor of Evolved Reputation- Building Strategy Brittany and Bo

2. Introduction One of the key questions in evolutionary psych and biology is why individuals help strangers without the possibility of return Norwak and Sigmund 1998: Cooperation pays, presents the cooperative individual as valuable Wedekind and Braithwaite 2002: Altruistic acts may enhance the altruist’s status and reputation in his/her social group

3. Introduction- Previous Research Barclay 2004: Computer simulation and experimental games Players showed a strong preference to give to those who had previously been generous in other transactions Milinksi et al., 2002: Donations deeply influence the social attitude of in group members towards the altruist Signal of individuals propensity to cooperate

4. Introduction Bereczkei et al., 2007: altruistic acts in a naturalistic, real-life situation Interested in what environmental and psychological factors evoke altruism Specifically reputation enhancement through conscious choice, or indirect result of norm adherence and/or prosocial personality traits. Hypothesis: the degree of publicity will be a measurable determinant on an individual’s willingness to do altruistic acts

5. Methods- Participants 214 subjects (129 female, 85 male) Medical School students, volunteers Were already in study seminar groups (18 groups of 8-14 members) They knew each other but not well

6. Methods- Tests Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI) Measured social cooperation skills (ex. Empathy) Mach-IV Scale “Never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so.” California Psychological Inventory Everyday traits (ex. Dominant, cooperative, helpful) Sociometry Had them name the 3 people they liked/respected the most Also had a 6 item survey (appendix A)

7. Methods- Procedure Participants are presented the chance to do the charity in two ways: Publically: They went to the front of the class and announced their intentions (announced the date and type of activity they wanted to participate in) Privately: They were given a sheet to fill out (privately) stating whether they wanted to give their time

8. Methods- Procedure Phase 1: Take the 4 tests Phase 2: 4-6 weeks later An offer to participate in several charitable activities (give blood, provide for the elderly, etc.) is presented in the seminar group 7 activities on the sheet, 3-4 hours to complete, participants could mark as many as they wanted to do Participants specified a set date to complete the charity by

9. Methods- Phase 3 and 4 Phase 3: Participants given the sociometry test immediately after the charity offer (which 3 people do you like/respect the most) Participants did not link the phases of the test together (only 4.2% recognized the tests were connected to the charity representative, self report) Phase 4: Participants were allowed to follow through with their charity pledges

10. Results- Charity Offer Nearly 40% (84/214) subjects were willing to volunteer Publicity has profound effect on generosity towards strangers (χ²= 17.95, p<.001)

11. Results- Reputation Strong correlation between the first sociometric measure and the second (Pearson=.77) Significant relationship between publicly made charity offers and increase in reputation This was found exclusively in the public charity offer group

12. Results- Regression analysis: personality and behavioral correlates of generosity Publicity had large positive effects on the likelihood of a charity offer Empathy and Compassion (TCI test) proved to be predictive Women Machiavellianism negatively associated with altruism- the higher the score in Mach-IV test, the lower the likelihood of volunteering Community (conformity, CPI test) slightly affects charity offer, but not profoundly.

13. Results- Regression analysis: personality and behavioral correlates of generosity Eq 1- Causal effect of publicity Eq 2- personality dimensions Eq 3- sex Eq 4- Machiavellianism Eq 5- variables concerning adherence to social norms

14. Discussion- Implications Giving to charity may be paid off in the long run by increased reputation Machiavellianism might be an alternate strategy We have a mechanism to recognize if people are watching and a mechanism to watch other people

15. Discussion- Confounds More subjects were willing to give when they had the chance to make it public they were giving Peer pressure effect? Barrier to volunteer is different How private was the private survey? Personality tests all self report and on Likert scales

16. Discussion- Future Studies Does gender of your peers matter? Cross cultural study Private and Public offers could be more similar in their barriers to entry (not requiring people to stand up) Eliminating the peer pressure effect; everybody could volunteer at once