Exploring the Conflict between Self-Interest and Concern for Others DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Nathan L. Arbuckle Graduate Program in Psychology The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: Professor William Cunningham, Advisor Professor Jennifer Crocker Professor Baldwin Way Copyrighted by Nathan L. Arbuckle 2011 Abstract Humans are social animals, in that we are adapted for living in groups and require assistance from others to survive (Caporael & Brewer, 1995). Thus, it stands to reason that people would not be solely self-interested, but instead would care about the welfare of other people some of the time. Indeed, a great deal of research has demonstrated the extent to which people are social, finding that loneliness is a risk factor for death (House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988), that people react negatively to minimal amounts of ostracism (Williams, 2007), and that people will give others money even when they have no reason to do so (Forsythe, Horowitz, Savin, & Sefton, 1994). Despite the wealth of evidence that seems to suggest that people do care about others, some argue that these are just varied expressions of self-interest. The purpose of the current research was to develop and test a new measure of concern for others that lacks obvious egoistic counter-explanations. In doing so, this research will examine personality and situational variables that affect concern for others, and will examine the neural correlates of concern. Study 1 introduces this measure, the dual gamble task, and finds that people are not solely self-interested even when egoistic reasons for showing concern for others are stripped away. Further, this study finds that there is reliable variation by personality, in that those high in empathy show more ii concern for others, and those high in psychopathy show less concern. Studies 2 and 3 investigate the relationship between personality and situational manipulations of concern, demonstrating that those high in psychopathy will show concern for others if they are properly motivated to do so. Finally, study 4 examines the neural correlates of concern for others, finding that those high in empathy react to others‘ decisions and outcomes much in the same way they do their own. Together, these studies demonstrate that people are not solely self-interested, and highlight the importance of individual differences in concern for others. iii Acknowledgments I would like to thank my committee members, Jenny Crocker and Baldwin Way, for their helpful feedback on this project. I would also like to thank my advisor, William Cunningham, for his guidance, support, and friendship. I am extremely grateful for all that he has invested in me throughout my time at OSU. I would also like to express my gratitude for all the support I received from those at Ohio State – members of social cognition research group and the group for attitudes and persuasion, members of Cunningham Lab, and especially my former advisor, Marilynn Brewer. I will miss the friendships that I have developed over the years with everyone in Columbus. I would also like to acknowledge those who have meant a great deal to me personally: Coach Jefferson, for teaching me to push myself; my parents, David and Jerri, and my brothers, Matt and Sean; and Jessica, for her tireless support and affection. iv Vita 2004................................................................B.S. Psychology, Oklahoma State University 2006................................................................M.A. Psychology, The Ohio State University Publications Cunningham, W. A., Arbuckle, N. L., Jahn, A., Mowrer, S. M., & Abduljalil, A.M. (2010). Aspects of neuroticism and the amygdala: Chronic tuning from motivational styles. Neuropsychologia, 48, 3399-3404. Miller, K.P., Brewer, M.B., & Arbuckle, N.L. (2009). Social identity complexity: Its correlates and antecedents. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12, 79-94. Payne, B. K., Govorun, O., & Arbuckle, N. L. (2008). Automatic attitudes and alcohol: Does implicit liking predict drinking? Cognition and Emotion, 22, 238-271. Fields of Study Major Field: Psychology v Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments............................................................................................................. iiv Vita ..................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Study 1 ........................................................................................................... 33 Chapter 3: Studies 2 and 3 ............................................................................................... 44 Chapter 4: Study 4 ........................................................................................................... 67 Chapter 5: General Discussion......................................................................................... 88 References ......................................................................................................................... 98 Appendix A: Dual Gamble Task Instructions ................................................................. 125 vi List of Tables Table 1. Estimates and p values, study 1 .......................................................................... 40 Table 2. Estimates and p values, study 2 .......................................................................... 55 Table 3. Estimates and p values, study 3 .......................................................................... 61 vii List of Figures Figure 1. Example trial of dual gamble task ..................................................................... 36 Figure 2. Interaction of psychopathy with concern for others, study 2 ............................ 57 Figure 3. Interaction of psychopathy with concern for others, study 3 ............................ 62 Figure 4. Neural activity in ACC at decision .................................................................... 76 Figure 5. Neural activity in insula at decision .................................................................. 77 Figure 6. Neural activity in OFC at outcome .................................................................... 79 Figure 7. Neural activity in NAc at outcome ................................................................ …80 Figure 8. Correlation between ACC activity at decision and empathy…………..………82 Figure 9. Correlation between ACC activity at decision and psychopathy…..…..…………………………………………….………………………..83 Figure 10. Correlation between amygdala activity at decision and empathy….………………………………………………………………………………83 Figure 11. Correlation between OFC activity at outcome (take) and empathy…..………………………………………………………………………………84 Figure 12. Correlation between putamen activity at outcome and empathy……..………85 Figure 13. Correlation between OFC activity at outcome (pass) and empathy…………………………………………………………………………..………85 viii Chapter 1: Concern for Others in the Social and Behavioral Sciences ―…Given a full chance to act in his own interest, nothing but expediency will restrain (man) from brutalizing, from maiming, from murdering – his brother, his mate, his parent, or his child. Scratch an ‗altruist,‘ and watch a ‗hypocrite‘ bleed.‖ Michael Ghiselin, The Economy of Nature and the Evolution of Sex, 1974 The standard view of human nature is that people are motivated solely by self-interest. Although economics is the field most obviously allied with the view of humans as solely self-interested (‗homo economicus,‘) there is a general tendency in the social sciences to go beyond the data in attributing self-interested motives to people when no evidence of such motivation exists (Dawes, 2004). This perspective is nicely captured in the quote above, which is the concluding statement on the implications of evolutionary theory for human nature (in a chapter entitled, ‗The antisocial contract;‖ Ghiselin, 1974). This view of humans as solely self-interested is so pervasive that even laypeople share it, as demonstrated by the fact that people tend to overestimate the extent to which others are motivated by self-interest (Miller, 1999; Ratner & Miller, 2001), and are more likely to behave prosocially if their behavior can be framed as self-interested (Holmes, Miller, & Lerner, 2002). Further, people demonstrate a tendency toward attributional cynicism, or 1 reconstruing seemingly selfless actions according to selfish motives with no basis for doing so (Crichter & Dunning, 2011). Although this view of human nature as solely self-interested is widespread, it has not gone unchallenged. Homo economicus has been contested by behavioral economics research showing that the assumptions of rationality and self-interest are not always tenable (see Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky, 1982; Camerer, 2003). The fact that contributions in economic games are ever above zero can