Original ArticleOn the social nature of eyes: The effect of social cues in interaction and individual choice tasks
Introduction
Humans frequently behave altruistically, even towards genetically unrelated strangers. While some of this altruistic behavior can likely be explained by concerns for the actor's (possible third-party) reputation, it has been argued that this explanation is incomplete. Tightly controlled economic experiments have repeatedly shown that subjects behave in an altruistic manner towards anonymous strangers, even when opportunities for repeated interaction and reputation formation are systematically ruled out (cf. Camerer, 2003). Recent literature, however, has shown that people are sensitive to subtle cues of being watched. In particular, it was demonstrated that, in anonymous experimental settings, the mere presence of pictures of a pair of eyes, or an eye-like stimulus, led to significant increases in donations to strangers in dictator games (Haley and Fessler, 2005, Oda et al., 2011, Rigdon et al., 2009, Nettle et al., in press), increased donations to a public good (Burnham & Hare, 2007), and induced greater disapproval of moral transgressions (Bourrat, Baumard, & McKay, 2011). The susceptibility of human beings to these subtle cues implies that, even in an anonymous laboratory setting, pro-social behavior should not necessarily be viewed as purely intrinsic (Haley and Fessler, 2005, Jaeggi et al., 2010).
A number of studies have investigated the generality of the effect of eyes on social behavior and have attempted to gain deeper insight into the possible mechanisms underlying this effect. A potential concern is that the observed phenomenon may have been caused by an experimenter demand effect (Ekström, 2012). Field experiments, however, suggest that this is not the case, as eye-like stimuli have induced pro-social behavior even when the subjects did not know that they were participating in an experiment. Bateson, Nettle, and Roberts (2006) studied the effect of pictures of eyes on the amount of money that employees at a university psychology department contributed to an “honesty box” in the coffee room. The authors found that, when a picture of eyes was placed next to the “honesty box”, the employee donations tripled. Ernest-Jones, Nettle, and Bateson (2011) showed that placing pictures of eyes in a university cafeteria that required diners to clear their own trays halved the odds of littering. However, the effect of eyes was only significant when the cafeteria was relatively quiet. Similarly, Ekström (2012) found that pictures of eyes increased the amount of money that was donated to charity in Swedish supermarkets by 30% during days on which relatively few people visited the stores. On the days on which the stores were busy, the eyes had no effect on customer donations. Finally, Powell, Roberts, and Nettle (2012) reported similar results to the previous findings. The authors found that displaying pictures of eyes on charity collection buckets in a supermarket increased donations and that this effect was significantly stronger when the supermarket was quiet rather than busy.
Although the eye effect appeared to be robust in field settings, several studies suggest that there are conditions under which these effects will not occur. The field studies discussed above suggested that pictures of eyes influence behavior only when the subject is in a non-crowded setting. Fehr and Schneider (2010) found that eyes did not influence the tendency of trustees to repay trust in a trust game. In Mifune, Hashimoto, and Yamagishi (2010), pictures of eyes increased donations in a dictator game when the recipient was an in-group member, but not when the recipient was an out-group member.
The common interpretation of the eye effect is that pictures of eyes trigger feelings of being watched, which in turn activate reputation concerns and subsequent behavioral changes. Such an argument seems plausible, given that actual opportunities to acquire a positive reputation that may pay off in the future have been found to enhance pro-social behavior (Engelmann and Fischbacher, 2009, Gächter and Fehr, 1999, Milinsky et al., 2001, Milinsky et al., 2002, Rege and Telle, 2004, Seinen and Schram, 2006, Wedekind and Milinski, 2000). To the best of our knowledge, Oda et al. (2011) provided the only direct test of this conjecture. The authors showed that the eye effect was mediated by expectations of future reward but not by a fear of punishment.
In the present study, we applied a dual strategy to better understand the effect of eyes on human behavior by expanding both the nature of the tasks and the types of social cues that were used as stimuli. Firstly, we examined whether the influence of eyes was limited to interaction tasks in which the subjects' decisions also influenced the outcomes of other subjects, or whether this influence also carried over to individual choice tasks in which the subjects' decisions influenced only their own outcomes. There is good reason to believe that eyes may influence decision-making in non-interaction tasks. A long line of psychological research has shown that the mere presence of others can facilitate the performance of simple tasks but impair the performance of more complex tasks (Bond and Titus, 1983, Zajonc, 1965). With respect to choice behavior, research on accountability suggests that people care about how others view their decisions, even in individual choice tasks (Kruglanski and Freund, 1983, Lerner and Tetlock, 1999, Vieider, 2011). In particular, when subjects know that their decisions will be made public, they adjust their behavior to comply with the prevailing view among their audience. If the view of the audience is unknown, the subjects engage in pre-emptive self-criticism, by carefully analyzing the problem to arrive at a more justifiable decision (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). These findings are intuitive as people are unlikely to be exclusively concerned with signaling a cooperative disposition; they will, for example, also care about appearing smart, conscientious, and successful. Therefore, if eye-like stimuli trigger a feeling of being monitored, their impact should not be limited to triggering pro-social behavior in interaction tasks, but can be expected to extend to individual choice tasks.
However, it is not definite that the effect of eyes should extend beyond interaction tasks. Cosmides (1989) and Cosmides and Tooby, 1989, Cosmides and Tooby, 1992 argued that humans have evolved specialized, domain-specific cognitive modules for solving problems that are encountered in social exchange. To support this claim, the authors showed empirical evidence that a specialized cheater-detection mechanism existed. Later research suggested that people also have a memory bias for cheaters (see Mealey et al., 1996, Oda, 1997, and Oda & Nakajima, 2010; see Barclay & Lalumière, 2006, and Mehl & Buchner, 2008, for contradictory findings). The ability to detect and remember cheaters may be necessary to successfully establish relationships of mutual cooperation. However, this ability is not sufficient because people must also aspire to cooperate in the first place. Kiyonari, Tanida, and Yamagishi (2000) therefore proposed the existence of a “social exchange heuristic,” which facilitates the establishment of mutual cooperation by encouraging subjects to perceive one-shot prisoner dilemmas as assurance games in which mutual cooperation is the most preferable outcome. As argued by Oda et al. (2011), the eye effect may be due to a similar social heuristic that evolved to facilitate mutual cooperation. If this social heuristic is the cause, then there is no a priori reason to expect pictures of eyes to have any effect in the absence of interaction and thus, no reason to believe that eyes will influence behavior in individual choice tasks.
Secondly, in addition to exploring whether pictures of eyes influenced behavior in individual choice tasks, we investigated the nature of that influence by comparing this effect with the effect of another condition that was designed to remind the subjects of other people in their social group. The literature is somewhat ambivalent regarding whether eyes are special cues or simply one among many social cues that could produce the same result. For instance, in addition to presenting subjects with pictures of eyes, Haley and Fessler (2005) manipulated auditory cues that indicated the presence of others by using sound-deafening earmuffs. The authors found that the earmuffs appeared to reduce the subjects' generosity, although the effect did not reach statistical significance. Lamba and Mace (2010) studied whether the presence of other students influenced decisions in an ultimatum game if the subjects were explicitly guaranteed that their decisions would remain anonymous. The authors found that the presence of other students did not affect the subjects' behavior and cited this result as evidence against an eye effect. Being reminded of others without being exposed to a direct eye gaze may not have the same effect as an eye cue. To investigate whether the effects were the same, we also implemented a peers condition in which pictures of our subjects' social group (i.e., university students) were displayed during the experiment.
Section snippets
Subjects
We conducted an online experiment on 165 students from the Erasmus School of Economics (henceforth ESE), Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands (32% females, age range = 18–33, mean = 21.1 years, S.D. = 2.06 years). The experiment was conducted during the first half of June 2010. We sent an email that contained personalized links to the website developed for the experiment to 600 students. The students were informed that the deadline to participate was two weeks after receipt of the
Task 1: Joy of destruction mini-game
The overall destruction rate obtained in the JoD over the three conditions was similar to the findings in Abbink and Herrmann (2010). Over our entire sample, 24.84% of the subjects decided to destroy (N = 153), compared with 25.8% of the subjects in Abbink and Herrmann's (2010) experiment. Across conditions, however, we observed sharp differences.
In our control condition (N = 51), the subjects destroyed 38.78% of the time (Fig. 3A). The destruction rate was halved in the eyes (N = 49) and peers (N =
Discussion
In the current paper, we applied a dual strategy to better understand the effect of pictures of eyes on human behavior. First, to identify whether the eye effect was limited to interaction tasks, we expanded the range of tasks to include individual choice tasks. Second, to ascertain whether eyes were special or were simply one among many social cues that may produce the same results, we compared the effect of eyes with the effect of another condition that presented the subjects with pictures of
Supplementary Materials
The following are the Supplementary data to this article.
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to Han Bleichrodt, Rafael Huber, Umut Keskin, Jim Leonhardt, Kirsten Rohde, Joeri Sol, Jan Stoop, Martijn van den Assem and the anonymous reviewers for their many constructive and valuable comments on previous versions of this paper. The paper benefited from discussion with seminar participants at the Erasmus University of Rotterdam, and with participants of the Tiber Symposium on Psychology and Economics 2011 at Tilburg University, the Subjective Probability, Utility,
References (53)
- et al.
The pleasure of being nasty
Economics Letters
(2009) The logic of social exchange: Has natural selection shaped how humans reason? Studies with the Watson selection task
Cognition
(1989)- et al.
Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture: Part II. A computational theory of social exchange
Ethology and Sociobiology
(1989) - et al.
Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1986) - et al.
Indirect reciprocity and strategic reputation building in an experimental helping game
Games and Economic Behavior
(2009) - et al.
Effects of eye images on everyday cooperative behavior: A field experiment
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2011) - et al.
Collective action as a social exchange
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization
(1999) - et al.
Nobody's watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2005) - et al.
Social exchange and reciprocity: Confusion or a heuristic?
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2000) - et al.
The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(1983)
People recognise when they are really anonymous in an economic game
Evolution and Human Behavior
Enhanced memory for faces of cheaters
Ethology and Sociobiology
No enhanced memory for faces of cheaters
Evolution and Human Behavior
Altruism toward in-group members as a reputation mechanism
Evolution and Human Behavior
The watching eyes effect in the Dictator Game: It's not how much you give, it's being seen to give something
Evolution and Human Behavior
Biased face recognition in the Prisoner's Dilemma game
Evolution and Human Behavior
Biased face recognition in the Faith Game
Evolution and Human Behavior
An eye-like painting enhances the expectation of a good reputation
Evolution and Human Behavior
The impact of social approval and framing on co-operation in public good situations
Journal of Public Economics
Minimal social cues in the dictator game
Journal of Economic Psychology
Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgment quality
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
The moral costs of nastiness
Economic Inquiry
On the subjective probability of compound events
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance
Do people differentially remember cheaters?
Human Nature
Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting
Biology Letters
Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies
Psychological Bulletin
Cited by (40)
Video-conferencing usage dynamics and nonverbal mechanisms exacerbate Zoom Fatigue, particularly for women
2023, Computers in Human Behavior ReportsEffects of robot gaze and voice human-likeness on users’ subjective perception, visual attention, and cerebral activity in voice conversations
2023, Computers in Human BehaviorCitation Excerpt :As a fundamental signal in human face-to-face communication, eye gaze could regulate social intimacy (Kleinke, 1986), manage turn-taking (Degutyte & Astell, 2021), and convey individuals' mental states, intentions, and willingness to interact (Emery, 2000). In the field of robotics, gaze has received abundant attention from researchers and has been regarded as a crucial factor for facilitating interactions, including understanding interaction intentions (Baillon, Selim, & van Dolder, 2013), promoting the engagement of conversations (Mavridis, 2015), modulating decision-making processes (Belkaid, Kompatsiari, Tommaso, Zablith, & Wykowska, 2021), and so forth (Admoni & Scassellati, 2017). According to its functions in HRI, robot gaze could be categorized into mutual gaze, referential (deictic) gaze, joint attention, and gaze aversions (Admoni & Scassellati, 2017).
Antisocial behavior in experiments: What have we learned from the past two decades?
2023, Research in EconomicsHuman face and gaze perception is highly context specific and involves bottom-up and top-down neural processing
2022, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral ReviewsCitation Excerpt :The effect of watching eyes in experimental economics games, such as the ultimatum and the dictator game, is debated. Some studies reported a positive pro-social effect (Baillon et al., 2013; Burnham and Hare, 2007; Haley and Fessler, 2005; Hietanen et al., 2018), while a similar pro-social effect was absent when auditory cues instead of watching eyes suggested the presence of others (Haley and Fessler, 2005). However, the review and meta-analyses of Northover et al. (2017) did not find evidence for a consistent pro-social effect of watching eyes in economic games.
Eye cues increase cooperation in the dictator game under physical attendance of a recipient, but not for all
2021, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental EconomicsCitation Excerpt :It is not yet clear from the literature in which a kind of settings cues of being watched have the potential to increase honesty or prosocial behavior and in which not. Considering that the watchful eyes effect seems to be limited to prosocial behavior in interaction tasks (Baillon et al., 2013) and that people may ignore eye cues when they know their behaviour is truly anonymous (Raihani & Bshary, 2012), it is important to notice that participants of the studies outlined above allocated money to an either truly anonymous recipient, or to an unidentified participant in the study being present in the same room at the same time together with a group of several other participants. Furthermore, subjects received financial remuneration and participated either in a one by one setting or in a group setting without visual or verbal contact to each other during the experiment.
Aesthetics and logistics in urban parks; can moving waste receptacles to park exits decrease littering?
2021, Journal of Environmental Psychology