OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Scientific reports
03 08, 2021;11 (1): 5373.

People prefer joint outcome prosocial resource distribution towards future others.

Yukako Inoue, Toshiyuki Himichi, Nobuhiro Mifune, Tatsuyoshi Saijo
Author Information
  1. Yukako Inoue: Research Institute for Future Design, Kochi University of Technology, Kochi, Japan.
  2. Toshiyuki Himichi: Research Institute for Future Design, Kochi University of Technology, Kochi, Japan. toshiyukihimichi@gmail.com.
  3. Nobuhiro Mifune: Research Institute for Future Design, Kochi University of Technology, Kochi, Japan.
  4. Tatsuyoshi Saijo: Research Institute for Future Design, Kochi University of Technology, Kochi, Japan.
PMID: 33686096 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-84796-4

Abstract

Today, developing and maintaining sustainable societies is becoming a notable social concern, and studies on altruism and prosociality toward future generations are increasing in importance. Although altruistic behaviors toward future generations have previously been observed in some experimental situations, it remains unknown whether prosocial preferences toward future others are based on equality or joint outcome orientations. In the present research, we exploratorily investigated preferences regarding resource distribution by manipulating the time points (i.e., present/future) of the participants and their imaginary partners. The results indicate that prosocial preference toward future others was as strong as that toward present others and seemed to be based on a joint outcome prosocial preference. Notably, when participants and their partners were at different time points, participants preferred to leave resources for the persons in the future. The findings indicate that the type of altruistic preference toward future others may differ from that toward present others, which is mainly equality.

References

  1. United Nations. Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development (2015).
  2. Kamijo, Y., Komiya, A., Mifune, N. & Saijo, T. Negotiating with the future: Incorporating imaginary future generations into negotiations. Sustain. Sci. 12, 409–420 (2017). [PMID: 30147758]
  3. Hauser, O. P., Rand, D. G., Peysakhovich, A. & Nowak, M. A. Cooperating with the future. Nature 511, 220–223 (2014). [PMID: 25008530]
  4. Shahrier, S., Kotani, K. & Saijo, T. Intergenerational sustainability dilemma and a potential solution: Future ahead and back mechanism. Soc. Des. Eng. Ser. 2017-9, (2017).
  5. Langenbach, B. P., Baumgartner, T., Cazzoli, D., Müri, R. M. & Knoch, D. Inhibition of the right dlPFC by theta burst stimulation does not alter sustainable decision-making. Sci. Rep. 9, 13852 (2019). [PMID: 31554883]
  6. Lohse, J. & Waichman, I. The effects of contemporaneous peer punishment on cooperation with the future. Nat. Commun. 11, 1–8 (2020). [DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-15661-7]
  7. Saijo, T. Future design: concept for a ministry of the future. Soc. Des. Eng. Ser. 2015-14 (2015).
  8. Komorita, S. S. & Parks, C. D. Brown & Benchmark’s Social Psychology Series. Social Dilemmas (Brown & Benchmark, Madison, 1994).
  9. Wade-Benzoni, K. A. & Tost, L. P. The egoism and altruism of intergenerational behavior. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 13, 165–193 (2009). [DOI: 10.1177/1088868309339317]
  10. Trivers, R. L. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q. Rev. Biol. 46, 35–57 (1971). [DOI: 10.1086/406755]
  11. Saijo, T. Future design: Bequeathing sustainable natural environments and sustainable societies to future generations. Sustainability 12, 6467 (2020). [DOI: 10.3390/su12166467]
  12. Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. Temporal construal. Psychol. Rev. 110, 403–421 (2003). [PMID: 12885109]
  13. Soderberg, C. K., Callahan, S. P., Kochersberger, A. O., Amit, E. & Ledgerwood, A. The effects of psychological distance on abstraction: Two meta-analyses. Psychol. Bull. 141, 525–548 (2015). [PMID: 25420220]
  14. Agerström, J. & Björklund, F. Moral concerns are greater for temporally distant events and are moderated by value strength. Soc. Cogn. 27, 261–282 (2009). [DOI: 10.1521/soco.2009.27.2.261]
  15. Agerström, J. & Björklund, F. Why people with an eye toward the future are more moral: the role of abstract thinking. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 35, 373–381 (2013). [DOI: 10.1080/01973533.2013.803967]
  16. Yi, R., Charlton, S., Porter, C., Carter, A. E. & Bickel, W. K. Future altruism: Social discounting of delayed rewards. Behav. Process. 86, 160–163 (2011). [DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2010.09.003]
  17. Osiński, J. & Karbowski, A. Delaying rewards has greater effect on altruism when the beneficiary is socially distant. PLoS ONE 12, e0170387 (2017). [PMID: 28196125]
  18. Wade-Benzoni, K. A. Maple trees and weeping willows: The role of time, uncertainty, and affinity in intergenerational decisions. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 1, 220–245 (2008).
  19. Bang, H. M., Zhou Koval, C. & Wade-Benzoni, K. A. It’s the thought that counts over time: The interplay of intent, outcome, stewardship, and legacy motivations in intergenerational reciprocity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 73, 197–210 (2017). [DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.07.006]
  20. Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Hernandez, M., Medvec, V. & Messick, D. In fairness to future generations: The role of egocentrism, uncertainty, power, and stewardship in judgments of intergenerational allocations. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44, 233–245 (2008). [DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.04.004]
  21. Tost, L. P., Wade-Benzoni, K. A. & Johnson, H. H. Noblesse oblige emerges (with time): Power enhances intergenerational beneficence. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 128, 61–73 (2015). [DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.03.003]
  22. Maccrimmon, K. R. & Messick, D. M. A framework for social motives. Behav. Sci. 21, 86–100 (1976). [DOI: 10.1002/bs.3830210203]
  23. Van Lange, P. A. M., Balliet, D. P., Parks, C. D. & Van Vugt, M. Social Dilemmas: Understanding Human Cooperation (OUP USA, Oxford, 2014).
  24. Messick, D. M. & McClintock, C. G. Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 4, 1–25 (1968). [DOI: 10.1016/0022-1031(68)90046-2]
  25. McClintock, C. G., Messick, D. M., Kuhlman, D. M. & Campos, F. T. Motivational bases of choice in three-choice decomposed games. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 9, 572–590 (1973). [DOI: 10.1016/0022-1031(73)90039-5]
  26. Harsanyi, J. C. Rule utilitarianism and decision theory. Erkenntnis 11, 25–53 (1977). [DOI: 10.1007/BF00169843]
  27. Van Lange, P. A. M. The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77, 337–349 (1999). [DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.337]
  28. Eek, D. & Gärling, T. Prosocials prefer equal outcomes to maximizing joint outcomes. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 45, 321–337 (2006). [PMID: 16762104]
  29. Fehr, E. & Schmidt, K. M. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q. J. Econ. 114, 817–868 (1999). [DOI: 10.1162/003355399556151]
  30. Balliet, D., Parks, C. & Joireman, J. Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 12, 533–547 (2009). [DOI: 10.1177/1368430209105040]
  31. Bogaert, S., Boone, C. & Declerck, C. Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A review and conceptual model. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 47, 453–480 (2008). [PMID: 17915044]
  32. Kuhlman, D. M. & Marshello, A. F. Individual differences in game motivation as moderators of preprogrammed strategy effects in prisoner’s dilemma. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 32, 922–931 (1975). [PMID: 1185519]
  33. De Cremer, D. & Van Lange, P. A. M. Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: The roles of social responsibility and reciprocity. Eur. J. Personal. 15, S5–S18 (2001). [DOI: 10.1002/per.418]
  34. Cornelissen, G., Dewitte, S. & Warlop, L. Are social value orientations expressed automatically? Decision making in the dictator game. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 37, 1080–1090 (2011). [PMID: 21518808]
  35. Mifune, N. & Li, Y. Trust in the Faith Game. Psychologia advpub (2019).
  36. Yamagishi, T. et al. Is behavioral pro-sociality game-specific? Pro-social preference and expectations of pro-sociality. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 120, 260–271 (2013). [DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.002]
  37. McClintock, C. G. & Allison, S. T. Social value orientation and helping behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 19, 353–362 (1989). [DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1989.tb00060.x]
  38. van Vugt, M., Meertens, R. M. & van Lange, P. A. M. Car versus public transportation? The role of social value orientations in a real-life social dilemma. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25, 258–278 (1995). [DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01594.x]
  39. van Vugt, M., van Lange, P. A. M. & Meertens, R. M. Commuting by car or public transportation? A social dilemma analysis of travel mode judgements. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 26, 373–395 (1996). [DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199605)26]
  40. Bonaiuto, M. et al. Local identity and the role of individual differences in the use of natural resources: The case of water consumption. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 38, 947–967 (2008). [DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00333.x]
  41. Joireman, J. A., Lasane, T. P., Bennett, J., Richards, D. & Solaimani, S. Integrating social value orientation and the consideration of future consequences within the extended norm activation model of proenvironmental behaviour. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 133–155 (2001). [PMID: 11329831]
  42. Timilsina, R. R., Kotani, K. & Kamijo, Y. Generativity and social value orientation between rural and urban societies in a developing country. Futures 105, 124–132 (2019). [DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2018.09.003]
  43. Schönbrodt, F. D. & Perugini, M. At what sample size do correlations stabilize?. J. Res. Personal. 47, 609–612 (2013). [DOI: 10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009]
  44. Statistics Bureau of Japan. The 2015 Population Census of Japan. https://www.e-stat.go.jp/en (2015).
  45. Van Lange, P. A., Otten, W., De Bruin, E. M. & Joireman, J. A. Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73, 733–746 (1997). [PMID: 9325591]
  46. Revelle, W. psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (1.9.12.). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych (2019).
  47. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.R-project.org/ (2019).
  48. Iseki, R. ANOVAkun [web log]. http://riseki.php.xdomain.jp/index.php?ANOVA%E5%90%9B (2018).
  49. Beaujean, A. A. BaylorEdPsych: R package for Baylor University Educational Psychology Quantitative Courses. R package version 0.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BaylorEdPsych (2012).
  50. Shahrier, S., Kotani, K. & Saijo, T. Intergenerational sustainability dilemma and the degree of capitalism in societies: A field experiment. Sustain. Sci. 12, 957–967 (2017). [DOI: 10.1007/s11625-017-0447-z]
  51. Small, D. A. & Loewenstein, G. Helping a victim or helping the victim: altruism and identifiability. J. Risk Uncertain. 26, 5–16 (2003). [DOI: 10.1023/A]
  52. Kogut, T. & Ritov, I. The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 18, 157–167 (2005). [DOI: 10.1002/bdm.492]
  53. Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. (Springer Verlag, New York, 2016). [DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4]
Journal Article
Article has an altmetric score of 3

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0towardfutureothersprosocialjointoutcomepresentparticipantspreferencegenerationsaltruisticpreferencesbasedequalityresourcedistributiontimepointspartnersindicateTodaydevelopingmaintainingsustainablesocietiesbecomingnotablesocialconcernstudiesaltruismprosocialityincreasingimportanceAlthoughbehaviorspreviouslyobservedexperimentalsituationsremainsunknownwhetherorientationsresearchexploratorilyinvestigatedregardingmanipulatingiepresent/futureimaginaryresultsstrongseemedNotablydifferentpreferredleaveresourcespersonsfindingstypemaydiffermainlyPeopleprefertowards

Similar Articles

Cited By