) Cues-of-Being-Watched Paradigm Revisited
Abstract
Bateson, Nettle, and Roberts (2006) provided an intriguing experimental paradigm for investigating the effects of social cues on cooperative behavior in a real-world setting. By placing an image of a pair of eyes on a cupboard door above an “honesty box” for hot beverages, they induced substantially higher amounts of contributions. As this finding has a significant impact on the social sciences and assumptions concerning the meaning of social cues for human behavior, we systematically reanalyzed their procedure and statistical analyses and tried to replicate the results while taking personality factors into account. The overall results of our analysis and replication efforts do not unequivocally support conclusions about the effects of eyes as social cues for cooperative behavior. Problems start with the definition of cooperative behavior, underspecified methods, confounding variables, invalid statistical analyses, and a lack of insight into the factors – including personality factors – that modulate the expected effect. A follow-up experiment with 138 participants showed no effect of eyes on socially relevant concepts and attitudes. Furthermore, none of the personality factors that, according to Bateson et al.’s explanation of reputational concerns, might be a source of effects interacted with any of the measures we used to operationalize these socially relevant concepts and attitudes.
References
(2010). Examining the attitude-behavior relationship in prosocial donation domains. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1293–1324.
(2005). Sickness absence from work in the UK. Office for national statistics. Labor market trends. Retrieved from www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/index.html
(2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology Letters, 2, 412–414.
(1998). The Big Five as states: How useful is the five-factor model to describe intraindividual variations over time? Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 202–221.
(1986). Understanding face recognition. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 305–327.
(2007). Engineering human cooperation: Does involuntary neural activation increase public goods contributions? Human Nature: An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective, 18, 88–108.
(2005). When feature information comes first! Early processing of inverted faces. Perception, 34, 1117–1134.
(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(1992). NEO-PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
(1975). Unmasking the face: A guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Cambridge, MA: Malor.
(
in press ). Do watching eyes affect charitable giving: Evidence from a field experiment. Experimental Economics.(
in press ). Effects of eye images on everyday cooperative behavior: A field experiment. Evolution and Human Behavior.. (2006). FAO statistics division: Food supply. Retrieved from faostat.fao.org/site/609/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID= 609#ancor
(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
(2010). Eyes are on us, but nobody cares: Are eye cues relevant for strong reciprocity? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277, 1315–1323.
(2010). Escaping attention: Some cognitive disorders can be overlooked. Science, 328, 435–436.
(2008). Neural and genetic foundations of face recognition and prosopagnosia. Journal of Neuropsychology, 2, 79–97.
(2005). Nobody’s watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 245–256.
(2007). The perception of emotion and social cues in faces. Neuropsychologia, 45(1), 1.
. (2008). Historical coffee statistics. London: Author. Retrieved from www.ico.org/new_historical.asp
(2010). People recognize when they are really anonymous in an economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 271–278.
(2005). When context hinders! Learn-test compatibility in face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Section A, 58, 235–250.
(2010). Altruism toward in-group members as a reputation mechanism. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 109–117.
(2005). Short version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI-K): Development and validation of an economic inventory for assessment of the five factors of personality. Diagnostica, 51, 195–206.
(2009). Minimal social cues in the dictator game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 358–367.
(1990). Effects of belief in free will or determinism on attitudes toward punishment and locus of control. Journal of Social Psychology, 130, 789–799.
(2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 249–268.
(1980). Attitude-behavior consistency: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 432–440.
