Search

Previous research has offered conflicting findings regarding the influence of help appeals that feature an individual victim compared to a group of victims. Studies examining emotional responses and donation behavior have generally found that help appeals focusing on a single victim elicit more prosocial responses, while studies examining policy support have found the opposite. The present studies investigate these effects while addressing potential confounds that may have arisen in previous research. Study 1 (N = 924) compares the effects of help appeals that focus on either a) an identified individual, b) an identified group, c) statistics describing many individuals, or d) statistics paired with an individual. Study 1 also examines how the location of the individual(s) in need moderates observed effects. Study 2 (N = 1,085) compares the effects of help appeals that describe either an identified individual or statistics about many individuals, while fully crossing the text manipulation with either a) no imagery, b) an image of an individual, or c) a map indicating areas of poverty. In both Study 1 and Study 2 no significant differences were found between the individual and the group conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is commonly assumed that how individuals identify on the political spectrum–whether liberal, conservative, or moderate–has a universal meaning when it comes to policy stances and voting behavior. But, does political identity mean the same thing from place to place? Using data collected from across the U.S. we find that even when people share the same political identity, those in “bluer” locations are more likely to support left-leaning policies and vote for Democratic candidates than those in “redder” locations. Because the meaning of political identity is inconsistent across locations, individuals who share the same political identity sometimes espouse opposing policy stances. Meanwhile, those with opposing identities sometimes endorse identical policy stances. Such findings suggest that researchers, campaigners, and pollsters must use caution when extrapolating policy preferences and voting behavior from political identity, and that animosity toward the other end of the political spectrum is sometimes misplaced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Indirect reciprocity is often claimed as one of the key mechanisms of human cooperation. It works only if there is a reputational score keeping and each individual can inform with high probability which other individuals were good or bad in the previous round. Gossip is often proposed as a mechanism that can maintain such coherence of reputations in the face of errors of transmission. Random errors, however, are not the only source of uncertainty in such situations. The possibility of deceptive communication, where the signallers aim to misinform the receiver cannot be excluded. While there is plenty of evidence for deceptive communication in humans the possibility of deception is not yet incorporated into models of indirect reciprocity. Here we show that when deceptive strategies are allowed in the population it will cause the collapse of the coherence of reputations and thus in turn it results the collapse of cooperation. This collapse is independent of the norms and the cost and benefit values. It is due to the fact that there is no selection for honest communication in the framework of indirect reciprocity. It follows that indirect reciprocity can be only proposed plausibly as a mechanism of human cooperation if additional mechanisms are specified in the model that maintains honesty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]