Microsoft Word WP cover template ACKOFF

Transcript

1 Self-interest without Selfishness: The hedonic benefit of imposed self-interest Jonathan Z. Berman Deborah Small The Wharton School The Wharton School University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Russell Ackoff Fellowship of the Wharton Risk Center Working Paper # 2012-09 Psychological Science Forthcoming in _____________________________________________________________________ Decision Risk Management and Processes Center The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Street, Jon Huntsman Walnut Hall, Suite 500 3730 Philadelphia, PA, 19104 USA Phone: 215 ‐ 898 ‐ 4589 Fax: 215 ‐ 573 ‐ 2130 http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk/ ___________________________________________________________________________

2 THE RISK MANAGEMENT AND DECISION PROCESSES CENTER WHARTON in 1984, the Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Established public develops promotes effective corporate and policies for low ‐ probability Center and events with potentially catastrophic consequences through the integration of risk assessment, and risk perception with risk management strategies. Natural disasters, security technological and national and international hazards, issues (e.g., terrorism risk insurance markets, protection of critical infrastructure, global security) are among the extreme that are the focus of the Center’s research. events The Center’s neutrality allows it to Risk undertake large ‐ scale projects in conjunction with other researchers and organizations in the public and private sectors. decision Building the disciplines of economics, on sciences, finance, insurance, marketing and psychology, the Center supports and undertakes field and experimental studies of uncertainty risk and to better understand how individuals and organizations make choices conditions of risk and uncertainty. Risk Center research also investigates under of strategies such as risk communication, information sharing, incentive the effectiveness insurance, regulation and public ‐ private collaborations at a national and systems, From these international findings, the Wharton Risk Center’s research team – over scale. able 50 fellows and doctoral students – is faculty, to design new approaches to enable individuals and organizations to make better decisions regarding risk under various regulatory market conditions. and actively is also concerned with training leading decision The It Center makers. engages multiple viewpoints, including top level representatives from industry, ‐ government, international organizations, interest groups and academics through its research and policy publications, and through sponsored seminars, roundtables and forums. More information is available at http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/risk.

3 Running Head: SELF - INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS - interest without Selfishness: Self The hedonic benefit of imposed self - interest Jonathan Z. Berman and Deborah A. Small University of Pennsylvania Forthcoming at Psychological Science Address correspondence to Jonathan Z. Berman, The Wharton School, University of lvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, e Pennsy mail: [email protected] . - The authors would like to thank Jason Dana, Barbara Mellers, Mike Norton, Scott Rick, and Barry Schwartz for their valuable comments. pport for this research comes from the Partial su Ackoff Fund of the Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes Center and the Wharton Behavioral Lab .

4 SELF - 2 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS ABSTRACT Despite common sense appeal, the link between self - interest and happiness remains elusive. O ne may not feel satisfied with self - interest is that they reason why individuals feel uneasy about sacrificing the needs of others for their own gain. We propose that externally imposing self - - s individuals to enjoy self interest benefiting outcomes th at are untainted by self - reproach allow for failing to help others. Experiment 1 finds that an imposed self - interested option (a reward) leads to greater happiness than choosing between a self - (a interested and a prosocial option this ) Experiment 2 finds charity donation that . effect is not driven by choice in general ; r ather , it is the specific tradeoff between benefiting the self and others that inhibits happiness with self - interest We theorize that the agency inherent in choice reduces the hedonic value of self - interest. . E xperiment 3 finds support for this mechanism.

5 SELF - 3 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS Traditional economic theory assumes that human behavior is driven by self - interested pursuits. This assumption appears valid because there is a direct link between outcomes that self and happiness: simply put, we feel good when our lot in life improves and we benefit the feel bad when it worsens. Yet the self interest assumption, first espoused by Thomas Hobbes - (1651/1950), has been repeatedly challenged by empirical findings that people ofte n make self - sacrifices to improve the welfare of others (Batson, 1991; Camerer & Thaler, 1995; Loewenstein ; but see Cialdini, Brown, Lewis, Luce & Neuberg, 1997 ; Maner, et. al, 2002 ). & Small, 2007 - s and happiness is complicated. Much Moreover, the relationship between self interested pursuit - making finds that people often fail to choose what makes them happy, and research in decision as a result may not be choosing what is best for them (see Hsee & Hastie, 2006). Furthermore, prosocial behavior has been sho wn to increase happiness — sometimes even more so than self - interested behavior (Dunn, Aknin, & Norton, 2008; Harb a ugh, Mayr, & Burghart, 2007; Meier & Stutzer , 2008 ). - One reason why the exclusive pursuit of self - interest may not always maximize well being is that it often entails sacrificing the needs of others along the way. Every dollar spent on oneself could otherwise be donated to someone in need. In many situations opportunity costs are not salient (Frederick, Novemsky, Wang, Dhar & Nowlis, 2009; Spill er, 2011), but when they are, the tradeoff between self and other may foster internal conflict ( Mellers , Haselhuhn, Tetlock, Silva & Isen, 2010) that could taint the otherwise pleasurable experience of gaining. Indeed, the experimental methods used to test the self - interest assumption — such as the dictator game — directly pit helping one’s self against helping others (Camerer & Thaler, 1995). If an individual selects an option of self - interest, they may feel guilt, unease, or even reproach for prioritizing themselves above others. If an individual selects a prosocial option, they fail to

6 SELF - 4 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS reap the benefits inherit in self - interest. Consistent with this view, research has shown that eoff trad s between self and other, if they can (Dana, Weber, & people will avoid making direct Kuang, 2007). We therefore propose that imposing selfish option removes the negative a n otherwise rience that arises when trading off one’s own well - being with the well - being others . By expe agency , individuals no longer feel a sense of responsibility over their outcomes, and removing self inherent in self - interest can enjoy the pleasure - reproach for failing to help while avoiding others. Thus, imposing an option of self - interest can be liberating by allowing individuals to enjoy self - interest without feeling selfish for doing so. Choice and Well being - The research presented in this paper contributes to a broader literature identifying when be ing (Botti - Iyengar, 200 6; Schwartz, the provision of choice is beneficial or harmful to well & ) 2004 — allowing for preference matching . Although more choice options makes economic sense by permitting individuals to select an option they desire the most — sometimes, additional choice hurts. As a decision becomes mor e complex, people experience choice conflict, thereby inhibiting satisfaction (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000). Increased choice conflict leads decision makers to defer choice , select a default option, and employ heuristics to guide decision - making (e.g. , Dhar, 1997; Luce, 1998; ). Shafir, Simonson & Tversky, 1993 Taken to the extreme, even removing choice altogether can be beneficial. In particular, choosing amongst relatively undesirable options reduces satisfaction , because individuals tend to blame the mselves for making a bad decision (Botti & McGill, 2006 ). Further, i mposing an

7 SELF - 5 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS s negative emotions that result from making a decision alleviate involving highly outcome trade - offs , such as the decision to terminate life support for a severely ill newborn upsetting Botti, Orfali & Iyengar, 2009). ( - Choice also hurts well being when it requires people to make harmful comparisons between alternatives. When options within a choice set have both clear advantages and dvantages, comparisons often hurt ( Brenner, Rottenstreich & Sood, 1999 ). However, we disa expect that certain comparisons are more damaging than others. For example, one study found worse about their that individuals who select a candy bar (vice) over fresh fruit (virtue) feel selection than when choosing amongst two different candy bars (Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2011). Whereas choosing a vice over a virtue represents a strong signal to one’s self that they are weak willed, choosing amongst two vices does not contai n the same diagnostic value . Similarly, we expect that when individuals select an option of self - interest over a prosocial feel selfish, which is undesirable. Whereas previous research option, they are likely to when choosing between undesirable shows that imposing an option is likely to be beneficial - interest nor prosocial behavior alternatives (Botti & McGill, 2006; Botti et al., 2009), neither self . Rather, the meaning of a self - interest ed outcome is altered by the are inherently undesirable presence of a prosocial option : self - interest becomes undesirable when chosen over a prosocial option, but not when it is imposed. Imposed self - interest versus imposed charity While we expect that imposing self - interest increases happiness , this is not likely to be true of imposing charity . Even though imposing charity likewise removes any internal conflict, it

8 SELF - 6 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS also removes agency. I ndividual agency is a key determinant of the pleasure derived from prima rily gain pleasure from helping others when they engaging in prosocial behavior people : eoni, 1990 are personally responsible for it (And Harbaugh et al. , 2007 ; Weinstein & Ryan, r ; ). Although some findings point toward imposed prosocial behavior boosting happiness 2010 (Dunn, et al., 2008), this not be true when individuals do not feel ownership over their good may deeds. Overview of studies The following studies test our hypothesis that removing choice and tradeoff s between benefits to the self and others increases the hedonic value of self - interest. Whereas previous research has emphasized the general benefit of removing choice to alleviate the negative effects of emotionally difficult s (Botti, et al., 2009), our theory proposes an asymmetric tradeoff hat externally imposing an option of self - interest (a reward) relationship. Experiment 1 shows t , but externally imposing a prosocial option (a increases outcome happiness relative to choice donation to charity) does not . Experiment 2 provides additional evidence of our hypothesis, showing that tradeoff s between self - benefiting and prosocial options reduce outcome happiness more than tradeoff s that involve the self only. Experiment 3 further reveals the mechanism driving our results by indicated th eir preference for either a self - benefiting manipulating perceived agency. Participants or a prosocial option , and eventually received their preferred option . However, s ome participants knew that they would receive their preference, while others were led to believe that the outcome

9 SELF - 7 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS was externally by a computer. P articipants were happier with self - interest when they chosen chosen. believed that it was externally EXPERIMENT 1 Method Two hundred sixteen 60% female; mean age = 20.2) took part in an hour - participants ( long lab session in exchange for payment. At the beginning of the study, all participants read the In this study, some participants will receive $3.00 to spend on themselves while following: “ - profit charity that helps needy children. other participants will donate $3.00 to UNICEF, a non ” Participants were then assigned to either a choice, an imposed self - interest, or an imposed charity condition. In the Choice condition, participants read that they have the option to receive $3.00 to spend on themselves or donate this money to UNICEF , a n selected their choice . nd the Imposed Self interest condition read that they would receive a windfall sum of Participants in the - participants in the $3.00 to spend on themselves, and condition read that they Imposed Charity would donate $3.00 to UNICEF . N ext, participants received an envelope either containing cash or a receipt for their donation. Participants then rated (1) how much they enjoyed receiving (donating) the money and (2) on a 7 - point scale ( 1 = “Not at all,” 7 = how satisfied they were with their money (donation) “An extreme amount”). These items were adapted from Botti and Iyengar (2004), and were averaged to create a two - item outcome happiness measure ( α = . 90). Results

10 SELF - 8 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS C hoice condition, 43.2% chose to donate to charity. In this Among participants in the outcome happiness between those who chose to take the condition, t here was no difference in ( M = 4.13, SD = 1.63) and those who chose to donate to charity ( M = 4.50, SD = 1.34; money t (72 1.04 , p = .30 ) and w e collapsed across self - selected outcomes . ) = Figure 1 displays the main results. A one - way ANOVA confirmed our hypothesis that ( F (2, 213) = 9.08, imposing self interest increases outcome happiness < .001, = .079). - p Specifically, p articipa nts in the I mposed Self - interest condition were happier ( M = 5.13, SD = 1.50) than those in the Choice M = 4.29, SD = 1.51; t (143) = 3.38, p < .001) and those condition ( I Charity in the M .001). There was no = 4.11, SD mposed = 1.60; t (140) = 3.96, p < condition ( significant difference in happiness between the C hoice and Imposed Charity conditions ( t (143) = 0.72, p = .48). 1 ------ about here ------ Insert figure Discussion Experiment 1 shows that imposing an option of self - interest increases outcome happiness. However, o - interest ne question that arises is whether the benefits of imposing an option of self are due to eliminating the conflict inherent in choice or whether the re is something more specific to the nature of a choice involving a tradeoff between benefiting the self versus others. In the previous studies, the only choice was between self and other. Therefore, experiment 2 attempts to tease apart the effect of self - other choice conflict from choice in general.

11 SELF - 9 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS EXPERIMENT 2 Unlike the prior experiment, in this study, participants across all conditions made a choice. Specifically, one group of participants chose between two options of which both are gains for the s elf, a second group chose between two prosocial options, and a third group had one option of each type. Method participate two individuals One hundred thirty 63% female; mean age = 20.8) - d in an ( hour - long lab session in exchange for payment. Because experiment 2 provided everyone with a choice, we conducted a pre - test to determine options of equal attractiveness across conditions. Two gift cards and two charities were selected (see supplemental materials for details). We randomly assigned pa rticipants to one of three conditions. In the Mixed Choice Set condition, participants chose between receiving a $5.00 gift card for themselves (Au Bon Pain or Starbucks) and donating this money to a charity (The Red Cross or UNICEF). They were presented w ith a choice set consisting of one of the two randomly determined gift cards and one of the two randomly determined charities. In the Self - interest Choice Set condition, participants chose between receiving $5.00 gift cards from Au Bon Pain or from Starbuc Prosocial ks. In the Choice Set condition, participants chose between donating $5.00 to The Red Cross or UNICEF. After receiving an envelope with either their gift card or donation receipt, participants completed the same outcome happiness items used in th e previous stud y .

12 SELF - 10 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS Results - = .89). Our two item outcome happiness measure achieved sufficiently high reliability ( α - Because there were four different gift card charity pairings in the mixed choice set condition, we first tested and found no significant effect of the specific gift card - charity pairing on choice ixed (3) = 1.15, = .76). We collapsed across pairin gs to create a single M p Choice Set ( condition with two outcomes (selfish or prosocial). Among these participants, 39.1% chose to donate the money rather than take a gift card. There was also no significant difference in to donate ( M = 5.75, SD = 0.97) and those who chose the happiness between those who chose M gift card ( = 5.23, SD = 1.43; t (44) = 1.34, p = .19) and we collapsed across outcomes. ANOVA that choosing among showed that Figure 2 displays the main results. A one way p leads to greater outcome happiness ( F a self 11.02 .07, interest choice set < .001, = - (2, 129) = . 146 ). Specifically, p articipants in the S elf - interest Choice Set condition were happier with their outcome ( M = 5. 99 , SD = 1.12) than those in the M ixed Choice Set condition ( M = 5.43, SD = M t p = .03) and those in the P rosocial Choice Set condition ( (88) = 2.17, = = 4.76, SD 1.29; 1.22; t (84) = 4.84, p < .001). P articipants in the M ixed Choice Set condition were happier with their outcome than those in the rosocial Choice S et condition ( t (86) = 2.51, p = .01). P Insert figure 2 about here ------ ------ Discussion The results from experiment 2 provide additional evidence supporting our hypothesis. As

13 SELF - 11 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS expected, participants who were faced with only self - benefiting options were happiest. It is not between benefiting tradeoff merely the presence of choice that reduces happiness, but rather the the self versus other . Our theory predicts that negative feel ings associated with self - benefiting s that result from selecting an option that benefits the choice are caused by the feelings of agency T self over others. directly by manipulating he final experiment examines this mechanism perceived agency. EXPERIMENT 3 the actual agency inherent in The present study manipulates perceived agency rather than choice . Participants first denoted their preference to keep or donate money . They were then randomly assigned to a condition where they either received their preference or were told that the computer would choose on denoted their behalf. However, all participants received their expressed preference, we received their preference regardless of condition. are Because everyone examine feelings of agency without confounding preference matching. We predicted that able to lowering perceived agency will increase outcome happiness with the self - interested outcome, but not the prosocial outcome. for Method T wo hundred fifty - two participants (55% female; mean age = 32.8) were recruited online via Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk in exchange for payment. Enrollment in the study was restricted to the United States.

14 SELF - 12 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS Participants were told that as part of the study they would either receive a $0.15 bonus or will donate this money to UNICEF. They were then presented with the following instructions: “ First, you will tell us your preference to keep or donate the $0.15 bonus money. Again, tion to the fee you get for participating in the current study. this money is in addi Next, we will generate a random number between 1 and 10. If the number is even, you will get your preference. If the number is odd, then the computer will make the selection uter may choose for you to keep the $0.15 or it may choose for you to for you. The comp donate the $0.15 to charity. You will then continue with the survey. After completing the survey you will either echanical receive the $0.15 bonus in your M donated to Turk account or it will be UNICEF. ” Participants then denoted their preference for receiving or donating the bonus money, and advanced to the next screen where a random number was displayed. If the number was even, participants were told that they would receive their pref erence, and they were reminded of what denoted they . If the number was odd, participants were told that the computer will make the decision for them, and were presented with the computer’s choice. The survey was programmed what the participant so that the computer simply chose so that denoted as their preference everyone was given their preference. T he only difference between conditions was whether the participants believed they were the agent responsible for their outcome (high perceived agency) or if the (low perceived agency) . computer was responsible for their outcome We again used a two - item outcome happiness measures (α = .92) that was adapted to fit this study. Participants were asked (1) “How do you feel about your choice (the computer’s choice for you) to receive (donate) money in this study?” on a scale ranging from 1 = “Not good

15 SELF - 13 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS at all” to 7 = “Extremely good” and (2) “How satisfied are you with your choice (the computer’s g from 1 = “Not at all choice for you) to receive (donate) money in this study?” on a scale rangin As a manipulation check, we measured perceived agency satisfied” to 7 = “Extremely satisfied”. they felt over the outcome and (2) how (1) how much by asking participants control responsible they felt over the outcome point sc ales (1 = “Not at all”, 7 = “An extreme amount”). using 7 - Results P articipants in the H igh A gency Overall, 41.3% of participants donated to charity. t M = 4.18 vs M condition felt more control ( = 2.83; (250) = 6.46, p < .001) and HighAgency LowAgency responsibility ( = 4.48 vs. M M = 3.16; t (250) = 5.65, p < .001) over the outcome. LowAgency HighAgency vs P Agency : Figure 3 displays the main results. A 2 ( erceived Low ) X 2 ( O utcome: High Keep vs Donate ) ANOVA revealed a significant interaction consistent with our hypothesis ( F (1, 248) = 7.18, = .008, p = .028). Among those who kept the bonus money — the self - interested outcome participants felt better when they believed the computer made the choice ( M = 6.33, — SD SD M = 5.55, = 0.87) than when they believe = 1.43; t (146) = d that they made the choice ( 3.81, p < .001) even though all of them had stated that they preferred to keep the money . A mong — the prosocial option — those who felt that the those who donated the bonus money M = 6.16, SD = 0.99) did not feel significantly different from those computer made the choice ( who felt that they made the choice ( M = 6.17, SD = 1.03; t (102) = 0.09, p = .93). ------ Insert figure 3 about here ------

16 SELF - 14 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS Discussion - interested Experiment 3 shows that perceived agency affects happiness with self receive behavior. money for themselves felt happier when they Participants who preferred to at they had believed that the computer selected this outcome for them than when they believed th chosen it. GENERAL DISCUSSION A virtually self evident truth is that people gain happiness from doing what is in their - - interest. Yet much research casts doubt on this basic assumption. We argue that one own self reason why people do not feel happier with self interested behavior is bec ause doing so - sometimes involves sacrificing the well - being of others along the way, and individuals often feel uneasy about making this tradeoff . The studies here demonstrate that removing the tradeoff between benefiting the self and benefiting others by imposing self interest promotes happiness. - Given that individuals sometimes go to great lengths in order to avoid feeling obligated to help others (Dana, Cain & Dawes, 2006; DellaVigna, List & Malmendier, 2011), it may be that desire for imposed self - interest over choice. Yet, when we asked a individuals would express a separate group of tudents what they would prefer hypothetically: imposed self - interest, 118 s 8 (1) = imposed charity, or choice, the majority of them preferred to have a choice (63.6%, . 68 , 1 with previous findings that people prefer the freedom to choose even if = . 003) p . This resonates it is to their own detriment (Botti & Iyengar, 2004; Botti, et al., 2009). In our studies, we do not find that imposing prosocial behavior increased happiness. As Weinstein and Ryan (2010) demonstrate, prosocial behavior increases happiness when it

17 SELF - 15 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS increases feelings of competence and autonomy and promotes positive interpersonal relations. in their helping behavior. It is possible This occurs when individuals feel autonomous motivation if we provided participants with even greater agency, such as the freedom to choose where that to donate, imposed prosocial condition could increase happiness over choice. However, then an - other tradeoff s such a result would not detract from our main findings that removing self s the hedonic value of self - interest. Further, by providing people with the freedom to increase - choose where to donate, it is interest possible that their donations would be motivated by self after all. For example, an individual with a family history of cancer may choose to donate to a cancer fund in hopes of finding a cure to help close relatives or her future self. While the studies here present participants with an explicit tradeoff between the self versus other, many real world decisions are not as explicit. To what extent do people think about - interest and vice versa? Research on opportunity helping others when acting in their own self cost neglect shows that people are highly sensitive to environmental cues and resource constraints that influence the manner in which they attend to alternative uses of their time and work has focused more on the self, we money (Frederick, et al., 2009; Spiller, 2011). While this currently know little about how individuals attend to opportunity costs involving others. It is likely that environmental cues and resource constraints also have a strong impact on - how individuals attend to self opportunity costs. For example, we asked 76 online other participants to imagine they found a twenty - dollar bill on the ground and spent it that night on a nice dinner . Participants were told that after finding the bill they passed either a shopping center on their walk home . Those or a who were told that they passed a shopping homeless shelter center felt that they would be happier spending this money at the restaurant ( M = 5. 95 , SD = = 2. 2.1 ) than those who passed a homeless shelter ( M = 4.92, SD 4 1 5 ; t ( 74) = 2 . 08 , p = .04) .

18 SELF - 16 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS Walking by a homeless shelter is likely to remind people of the good they could otherwise be newfound wealth, causing them to feel bad about their own self - interested doing with their behavior. ttuned to think about the needs of others, In addition, some people may be chronically a - interestedly. When they do, these and may find it particularly uncomfortable to behave self people may fail to find happiness. Just as tightwads experience the pain of paying (Rick, Cryder, & Loewenstein, 2008) an d hyperopic individuals eschew indulgence with their eye on the future (Kivetz & Simonson, 2002), individuals with a chronic self - other choice conflict may similarly struggle to feel good from pleasurable experiences. Like with hyperopia, they may find it necessary to pre - commit in order to partake in self - interested behavior. The disconnect between selecting a selfish option in the present while being tied to the outcome in the future may relieve feelings of selfishness. Additional research can test the ef - imposition in fectiveness of self unease reducing - interested behavior. with self I t is becoming increasingly clear that people sometimes go out of their way to help others, and that helping others can feel good . It is less clear why self - interested behavior fails to show the same benefits. We show that one reason why self interest does not lead to happiness is - because, even though people enjoy self - interested outcomes, they do not like to feel selfish. By imposing a self - benefiting option, an individ ual is freed to enjoy self - interest without selfishness.

19 SELF - 17 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS REFERENCES Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm glow giving. Economic Journal, 100 , 464 – 477. The altruism question: Toward a social - psychological answer. Hillsdale: Batson, C.D. (1991). Erlbaum Associates. . The psychological pleasure and pain of choosing: When people Botti, S., & Iyengar, S.S. (2004) prefer choosing at the cost of subsequent satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social , 312 Psychology, 87 3 26 . - Botti, S., & Iyengar, S.S. (200 6). The dark side of choice: When choice impairs social welfare. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 2 , 24 - 38. Botti, S., & McGill, A. L. (2006). When choosing is not deciding: The effect of perceiv ed Journal of Consumer Research, 33 - 219. responsibility on satisfaction. , 211 responses Botti, S., Orfali, K., & Iyengar, S. S. (2009). Tragic choices: Autonomy and emotional Journal of Consumer Research, 36 , 337 - 352. to medical decisions. Brenner, L., Rot tenstreich, Y., & Sood, S. (1999). Comparison, grouping, and preference. Psychological Science, 10 , 225 – 2 29. Camerer, C., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Anomalies: Ultimatums, dictators and manners. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9 , 209 – 219. Cialdini, R.B., Brown, S.L., Lewis, B.P., Luce, C., & Neuberg, S.L. (1997). Reinterpriting the empathy — altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 , 481 - 494.

20 SELF - 18 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS Dana, J., Cain, D. M., & Dawes, R. (2 006). What you don’t know won’t hurt me: Costly (but quiet) exit in dictator games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, – 201. 193 Exploiting moral wiggle room: Experiments . Dana, J., Weber, R.A. & Kuang, J. X. (2007) illusory preference for fairness. Economic Theory , 33 , 67 – demonstrating an 80. DellaVigna, S., List, J.A., & Malmendier, U. (2011). Testing for altruism and social pressure in Quarterly Journal of Economics forthcoming . charitable giving. , - choice option. Journal of Consumer Research, Dhar, R. (1997). Consumer preference for a no , 215 - 231 . 24 Dhar, R. & Wertenbroch, K. (2011). Self - signaling and the costs and benefits of temptation in consumer choice. Journal of Marketing Research , forthcomin g. Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. , & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending money on others promotes B. Science, 319, 1687−1688. happiness. , Wang, J., Dhar R. & Nowlis, S. (2009). Opportunity cost neglect. Frederick, S., Novemsky, N. , 553 - 5 61. Journal of Consumer Research, 36 Harbaugh, W. T., Mayr, U., & Burghart, D. R. (2007). Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science, 316, 1622−1625. Hobbes, T. (1950). . New York: Dutton. (Original work published 1651) Leviathan Hs ee, C.K. & Hastie, R. (2006). Decision and experience: Why don’t we choose what makes us happy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10 , 31 - 3 7 . Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of P ersonality and Social Psychology, 79 , 995 – 1006.

21 SELF - 19 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS heory of I. (2002) . Self - control for the righteous: Toward a t Simonson Kivetz, R ., & Journal of Consumer Research, 29 , 199 - 217. precommitment to indulgence. Small, D. (2007). The scarecrow and the tin man: The vicissitudes of human Loewenstein, G. & Review of General Psychology, 11 sympathy and caring. – 126. , 112 - Luce, M.F. (1998). Choosing to avoid: Coping with negatively emotion laden consumer Journal of Consumer R esearch, 24 , 409 - 433 . decisions. Maner, J.K., Luce, C.L., Neuberg, S.L., Cialdini, R.B., Brown, S. & Sagarin, B.J. (2002). The effects of perspective taking on motivations for helping: Still no evidence for altruism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1601 - 1610. Meier, S., & Stutzer, A. (2008). Is volunteering rewarding in itself? Economica, 75, 39 - 59. Mellers, B.A., Haselhuhn, M.P., Tetlock, P.E., Silva, J.C., & Isen, A . (2010). Predicting behavior players. in economic games by looking through the eyes of the Journal of Experimental - (4), 743 Psychology: General, 139 755. Rick, S.I., Cryder, C.E., Loewenstein, G. (2008). Tightwads and spendthrifts. Journal of , 767 – Consumer Research, 34 782. Schwartz B. (2004) . , : Why more is less . New York: Ecco. The paradox of choice Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason - based choice. Cognition, 49, 11 – 36. Spiller, S.A. (2011). Opportunity cost consideration. Journal of Consumer Research, , 595 - 38 610 . Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R.M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well - being for the helper and recipient . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98 , 222 - 244 .

22 SELF INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS 20 - FOOTNOTES 1 A total of 29.7% of subjects preferred imposed self - interest and 6.8% of subjects preferred imposed charity.

23 SELF - 21 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS 7 interest Self - Charity = 4.29 M 6 5.13 5 4.50 4.13 4.11 4 Outcome Happiness 3 Interest Imposed Self Choice Imposed Charity - interest increases happiness (experiment 1). Outcome happiness is - : Imposing self Figure 1 measured on a 1 to 7 scale. Within the Choice condition, 43.2% of participants donated to standard error. charity. Error bars represent ± 1

24 SELF INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS 22 - 7 M = 5.43 interest - Self Charity 5.99 5.75 6 5.23 4.76 5 Outcome Happiness 4 Choice Imposed Charity Interest - Imposed Self 2 : A self interested choice set is preferred to a mixed choice set, controlling for option - Figure desirability (experiment 2). Outcome happiness is measured on a 1 to 7 scale. Within the Mixed Choice Set condition, 39.1% of participan ts donated to charity. Error bars represent ± 1 standard error.

25 SELF - 23 INTEREST WITHOUT SELFISHNESS 7 interest - Self 6.8 Charity 6.6 6.4 6.2 6 5.8 5.6 Outcome Happiness 5.4 5.2 5 Low Perceived Agency High Perceived Agency interest (experiment 3). Figure - : Increasing perceived agency decreases happiness with self 3 Outcome happiness is measured on a 1 to 7 scale.

Related documents