Beyond a binary theorizing of prosociality
arxiv(2024)
Abstract
A stylized experiment, the public goods game, has taught us the peculiar
reproducible fact that humans tend to contribute more to shared resources than
expected from economically rational assumptions. There have been two competing
explanations for this phenomenon: either contributing to the public good is an
innate human trait (the prosocial preference hypothesis) or a transitory effect
while learning the game (the confused learner hypothesis). We use large-scale
experimental data from a novel experimental design to distinguish between these
two hypotheses. By monitoring the effects of zealots (persistently cooperating
bots) and varying the participants' awareness of them, we find a considerably
more complex scenario than previously reported. People indeed have a prosocial
bias, but not to the degree that they always forego taking action to increase
their profit. While our findings end the simplistic theorizing of prosociality
in the public goods game, an observed positive, cooperative response to zealots
has actionable policy implications.
MoreTranslated text
AI Read Science
Must-Reading Tree
Example
![](https://originalfileserver.aminer.cn/sys/aminer/pubs/mrt_preview.jpeg)
Generate MRT to find the research sequence of this paper
Chat Paper
Summary is being generated by the instructions you defined