Self-competence increases the willingness to pay for social influence.

Uri Hertz, Evangelia Tyropoulou, Cecilie Traberg, Bahador Bahrami
Author Information
  1. Uri Hertz: Department of Cognitive Sciences, University of Haifa, 3498838, Haifa, Israel. uhertz@cog.haifa.ac.il.
  2. Evangelia Tyropoulou: UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London, London, WC1N 3AZ, UK.
  3. Cecilie Traberg: Department of Psychology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK.
  4. Bahador Bahrami: Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, 14195, Berlin, Germany.

Abstract

Theoretical works in social psychology and neuroscientific evidence have proposed that social rewards have intrinsic value, suggesting that people place a high premium on the ability to influence others. To test this hypothesis, we asked whether, and under what conditions, people are willing to forgo monetary reward for the sake of influencing others' decisions. In four experiments, online and lab-based participants competed with a rival for influence over a client. The majority of participants sacrificed some of their financial reward to increase their chance of being selected over their rival within the experiment. Willingness to pay was affected by the participant's current level of influence and performance, as participants were most likely to pay to promote their competence after having given good advice that had been ignored by the client using a situation where monetary incentives fail to explain human motivations, our experiments highlight the intrinsic value of social influence.

References

  1. Neurosci Res. 2012 Apr;72(4):283-8 [PMID: 22285602]
  2. Behav Res Methods. 2013 Mar;45(1):116-24 [PMID: 23055159]
  3. Neuron. 2016 Dec 7;92(5):1135-1147 [PMID: 27930904]
  4. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2020 Aug;149(8):1567-1586 [PMID: 31916837]
  5. Front Neurosci. 2013 Dec 10;7:233 [PMID: 24339801]
  6. Br J Psychiatry. 1994 Mar;164(3):309-15 [PMID: 8199784]
  7. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58:425-52 [PMID: 16968209]
  8. Neuron. 2008 Apr 24;58(2):273-83 [PMID: 18439411]
  9. Psychol Sci. 2007 Jan;18(1):46-50 [PMID: 17362377]
  10. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jul 31;115(31):E7255-E7264 [PMID: 29954865]
  11. Neuron. 2008 Apr 24;58(2):284-94 [PMID: 18439412]
  12. Science. 2003 Oct 10;302(5643):290-2 [PMID: 14551436]
  13. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Dec 5;370(1683):20150013 [PMID: 26503686]
  14. Nat Neurosci. 2015 Sep;18(9):1233-5 [PMID: 26237363]
  15. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2017 Oct 1;12(10):1558-1564 [PMID: 28985408]
  16. Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 Jan;22(1):32-51 [PMID: 29273112]
  17. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2015 Oct;10(10):1323-8 [PMID: 25698700]
  18. Curr Biol. 2010 Jul 13;20(13):1165-70 [PMID: 20619815]
  19. Psychol Bull. 2015 May;141(3):574-601 [PMID: 25774679]
  20. Behav Res Methods. 2006 Feb;38(1):174-80 [PMID: 16817529]
  21. Curr Biol. 2011 May 10;21(9):794-7 [PMID: 21530264]
  22. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Oct;3(10):1055-1061 [PMID: 31358973]
  23. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006 Nov;91(5):918-28 [PMID: 17059310]
  24. Nat Commun. 2017 Dec 19;8(1):2191 [PMID: 29259152]
  25. Psychol Bull. 1995 May;117(3):497-529 [PMID: 7777651]
  26. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2013 Jan;104(1):103-25 [PMID: 23163747]
  27. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006 Dec;91(6):1094-110 [PMID: 17144767]
  28. Psychol Sci. 2011 Jul;22(7):894-900 [PMID: 21653908]
  29. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2006 Dec;91(6):1123-37 [PMID: 17144769]
  30. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018 Nov;13(6):700-717 [PMID: 30415630]
  31. Neuron. 2009 Jan 15;61(1):140-51 [PMID: 19146819]
  32. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Oct;103(4):718-35 [PMID: 22800286]

Grants

  1. 819040/European Research Council

MeSH Term

Adult
Diagnostic Self Evaluation
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Models, Psychological
Peer Influence
Psychology, Social
Reward
Social Interaction
Young Adult

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0influencesocialparticipantspayintrinsicvaluepeoplemonetaryrewardexperimentsrivalclientTheoreticalworkspsychologyneuroscientificevidenceproposedrewardssuggestingplacehighpremiumabilityotherstesthypothesisaskedwhetherconditionswillingforgosakeinfluencingothers'decisionsfouronlinelab-basedcompetedmajoritysacrificedfinancialincreasechanceselectedwithinexperimentWillingnessaffectedparticipant'scurrentlevelperformancelikelypromotecompetencegivengoodadviceignoredusingsituationincentivesfailexplainhumanmotivationshighlightSelf-competenceincreaseswillingness

Similar Articles

Cited By (7)