Heritability of decisions and outcomes of public goods games.

Kai Hiraishi, Chizuru Shikishima, Shinji Yamagata, Juko Ando
Author Information
  1. Kai Hiraishi: Faculty of Psychology, Yasuda Women's University Hiroshima, Japan.
  2. Chizuru Shikishima: Faculty of Liberal Arts, Teikyo University Tokyo, Japan.
  3. Shinji Yamagata: Faculty of Arts and Science, Kyushu University Fukuoka, Japan.
  4. Juko Ando: Faculty of Letters, Keio University Tokyo, Japan.

Abstract

Prosociality is one of the most distinctive features of human beings but there are individual differences in cooperative behavior. Employing the twin method, we examined the heritability of cooperativeness and its outcomes on public goods games using a strategy method. In two experiments (Study 1 and Study 2), twin participants were asked to indicate (1) how much they would contribute to a group when they did not know how much the other group members were contributing, and (2) how much they would contribute if they knew the contributions of others. Overall, the heritability estimates were relatively small for each type of decision, but heritability was greater when participants knew that the others had made larger contributions. Using registered decisions in Study 2, we conducted seven Monte Carlo simulations to examine genetic and environmental influences on the expected game payoffs. For the simulated one-shot game, the heritability estimates were small, comparable to those of game decisions. For the simulated iterated games, we found that the genetic influences first decreased, then increased as the numbers of iterations grew. The implication for the evolution of individual differences in prosociality is discussed.

Keywords

References

  1. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2006 Jun;9(3):334-42 [PMID: 16790144]
  2. Acta Genet Med Gemellol (Roma). 1993;42(1):17-22 [PMID: 8191857]
  3. Hum Nat. 2008 Jun;19(2):138-56 [PMID: 26181461]
  4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Mar 11;105(10):3721-6 [PMID: 18316737]
  5. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Jun;1167:57-65 [PMID: 19580553]
  6. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jun 28;108 Suppl 2:10910-7 [PMID: 21690372]
  7. Annu Rev Psychol. 1991;42:459-91 [PMID: 2018400]
  8. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Oct 2;104(40):15631-4 [PMID: 17909184]
  9. Nature. 2003 Oct 23;425(6960):785-91 [PMID: 14574401]
  10. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Feb 1;102(5):1803-7 [PMID: 15665099]
  11. Hum Nat. 2007 Jun;18(2):88-108 [PMID: 26181843]
  12. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009 Jul;4(4):359-66 [PMID: 26158983]
  13. Psychol Sci. 2014 Sep;25(9):1699-711 [PMID: 25037961]
  14. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Jun;1167:66-75 [PMID: 19580554]
  15. Science. 2006 Dec 8;314(5805):1560-3 [PMID: 17158317]
  16. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2013 Feb;16(1):202-16 [PMID: 23394192]
  17. Neuron. 2010 Mar 25;65(6):831-44 [PMID: 20346758]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0heritabilitygameindividualdifferencestwinpublicgoodsgamesStudy2muchdecisionsbehaviormethodoutcomes1participantscontributegroupknewcontributionsothersestimatessmallgeneticinfluencessimulatedProsocialityonedistinctivefeatureshumanbeingscooperativeEmployingexaminedcooperativenessusingstrategytwoexperimentsaskedindicateknowmemberscontributingOverallrelativelytypedecisiongreatermadelargerUsingregisteredconductedsevenMonteCarlosimulationsexamineenvironmentalexpectedpayoffsone-shotcomparableiteratedfoundfirstdecreasedincreasednumbersiterationsgrewimplicationevolutionprosocialitydiscussedHeritabilitygeneticscooperationstudy

Similar Articles

Cited By