Article

Heritability of cooperative behavior in the trust game.

Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 50 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA 02142, USA.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Impact Factor: 9.81). 04/2008; 105(10):3721-6. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0710069105
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Although laboratory experiments document cooperative behavior in humans, little is known about the extent to which individual differences in cooperativeness result from genetic and environmental variation. In this article, we report the results of two independently conceived and executed studies of monozygotic and dizygotic twins, one in Sweden and one in the United States. The results from these studies suggest that humans are endowed with genetic variation that influences the decision to invest, and to reciprocate investment, in the classic trust game. Based on these findings, we urge social scientists to take seriously the idea that differences in peer and parental socialization are not the only forces that influence variation in cooperative behavior.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: James Henry Fowler, Jul 17, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
119 Views
  • Source
    • "Cesarini et al. (2009a) conducted a modified dictator game that concerns altruism toward unknown people and found that individual variation in responses was explained by 31% of genetic factors and 69% of non-shared environmental influences. Cesarini et al. (2008) have conducted trust game experiments in the US and Sweden. The game measures the level of trust and the level of trustworthiness of the participants. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    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.
    Frontiers in Psychology 04/2015; 6:373. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00373 · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "In this sense, our closest living evolutionary relatives appear to be more rational than we are (Jensen, Call, and Tomasello 2007). Variation in modern-day human cooperative behavior is partly heritable (Cesarini et al. 2008; Schroeder, McElreath, and Nettle 2013) and partly attributable to the matrix of social and cultural norms in which an individual grows up in (Henrich et al. 2004, 2005; Herrmann, Thöni, and Gächter 2008; Holm and Danielson 2005). There is strong evidence that gene-culture coevolution shaped our species-distinct pattern of prosocial psychology (Chudeck and Henrich 2011; Laland et al. 2010; Richerson and Boyd 2005; Richerson et al. 2010). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Using the dictator game as a measure of prosocial behavior, we combined data from developmental studies from 14 different sites around the world (N = 1,601). We fitted several growth models to the developmental trajectories that varied in their complexity and levels of prosociality. The rationale we used here assumes we can infer something about where all children start on a generous-selfish continuum by looking at the shape of developmental change. We found the model that best explained the variation in developmental trajectories began with a sharing value of ~15%, more toward the selfish end of the spectrum. We also found tentative evidence that the rate at which these prosocial attitudes develop is dependent on the norm of the society. Essentially, if the adult sharing norm is higher, as it is in non-Western societies, then the child needs to develop at a quicker rate to reach this norm by adulthood. Results are discussed with reference to whether the history of human evolution has left the content of a norm underspecified while leaving the cognitive architecture in place to acquire it—a process that we argue is analogous to imprinting.
    Current Anthropology 10/2014; 550(02). DOI:10.1086/679254 · 2.93 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "There is now increasing consensus that choice behavior, like all complex biological traits, is the result of interactions between genetic, environmental , and developmental/epigenetic processes (see Fig. 1). Early studies at the interface of genetics and decision making clearly link genetic differences to choice behavior as shown in financial risk taking (Cesarini et al. 2008) and prosocial behavior and empathy (Knafo and Plomin 2006). The heritability of these traits typically ranges from 0.2 to 0.5, which is consistent with phenotypes that are moderately heritable (Plomin 1990). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the first decade of consumer neuroscience, strong progress has been made in understanding how neuroscience can inform consumer decision making. Here, we sketch the development of this discipline and compare it to that of the adjacent field of neuroeconomics. We describe three new frontiers for ongoing progress at both theo-retical and applied levels. First, the field will broaden its boundaries to include genetics and molecular neuroscience, each of which will provide important new insights into individual differences in decision making. Second, recent advances in computational methods will improve the accuracy and out-of-sample generalizability of predicting decisions from brain activity. Third, sophisticated meta-analyses will help consumer neuroscientists to synthesize the growing body of knowledge, providing evidence for consistency and specificity of brain activations and their reliability as measurements of consumer behavior. 1 Consumer neuroscience: the first decade One of the first papers to discuss the relevance of neuroscience and biology to decision research originated from a workshop on the topic at the Invitational Choice Symposium in 2004 (Shiv et al. 2005). The paper asserted that "knowledge in neuroscience can potentially enrich research on decision-making" (p. 375) and "integrating neuroscience with decision-making offers tremendous potential" (p. 385). Ten years later, significant progress has been made in decision neuroscience (broadly used to include decision-making research in neuroeconomics, consumer neuroscience, and social neuroscience). For example, we have achieved a sophisticated understanding of how the brain computes the value of choice options and compares these values leading to choice and how context modulates these basic valuation and decision processes (e.g., Levy and Glimcher 2012). The specific subfield of consumer neuro-science, which applies neuroscience insights and techniques to consumer behavior and
    Marketing Letters 09/2014; 25(3):257-267. DOI:10.1007/s11002-014-9306-1 · 0.63 Impact Factor
Show more