Effects of age-related differences in empathy on social economic decision-making

International Psychogeriatrics

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 822-833

  Beadle, Janelle N ^a   Paradiso, Sergio ^a   Kovach, Christopher ^a,b   Polgreen, Linnea ^c   Denburg, Natalie L ^a   Tranel, Daniel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

aging; economic decision making; empathy; social cognition

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; AGING; ARTICLE; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; EMOTION; EMPATHY; FEMALE; GERIATRIC DISORDER; HUMAN; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; SCORING SYSTEM; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIOECONOMICS;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; EMPATHY; FEMALE; GAMES, EXPERIMENTAL; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84859119477     PISSN: 10416102     EISSN: 1741203X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610211002547     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Bailey, P. E., Henry, J. D. and Von Hippel, W. (2008). Empathy and social functioning in late adulthood. Aging and Mental Health, 12, 499-503.
2. Barraza, J. A. and Zak, P. J. (2009). Empathy towards strangers triggers oxytocin release and subsequent generosity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1167, 182-189.
3. Batson, C. D. and Moran, T. (1999). Empathy-induced altruism in a prisoner's dilemma. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 909-924.
4. Bellemare, C. and Kroger, S. (2007). On representative social capital. European Economic Review, 51, 183-202.
5. Brown, S. B. R. E. and Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2009). Aging and the neuroeconomics of decision making: a review. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 365-379.
6. Camerer, C. F. and Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: a review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 7-42.
7. Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M. and Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: a theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165-181.
8. Crockett, M. J., Clark, L., Hauser, M. D. and Robbins, T. W. (2010). Serotonin selectivity influences moral judgment and behavior through effects on harm aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 17433-17438.
9. Davis, M. H. (1979). Individual differences in empathy: a multidimensional approach. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 3480.
10. Davis, M. H. (1983). The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality, 51, 167-184.
11. Denburg, N. L., Tranel, D. and Bechara, A. (2005). The ability to decide advantageously declines prematurely in some normal older persons. Neuropsychologia, 43, 1099-1106. (Pubitemid 40349607)
12. Eckel, C. C. and Grossman, P. J. (2001). Chivalry and solidarity in ultimatum games. Economic Inquiry, 39, 171-188.
13. Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785-791. (Pubitemid 37351457)
14. Fein, G., McGillivray, S. and Finn, P. (2007). Older adults make less advantageous decisions than younger adults: cognitive and psychological correlates. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 13, 480-489. (Pubitemid 47307488)
15. German, T. P. and Hehman, J. A. (2006). Representational and executive selection resources in "theory of mind:" evidence from compromised belief-desire reasoning in old age. Cognition, 101, 129-152.
16. Gunning-Dixon, F. M. et al. (2003). Age-related differences in brain activation during emotional face processing. Neurobiology of Aging, 24, 285-295. (Pubitemid 36005409)
17. Guth, W., Schmittberger, R. and Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 367-388.
18. Kirman, A. and Teschl, M. (2010). Selfish or selfless? The role of empathy in economics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 303-317.
19. Koenigs, M. and Tranel, D. (2007). Irrational economic decision-making after ventromedial prefrontal damage: evidence from the ultimatum game. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 951-956. (Pubitemid 46174516)
20. Mungas, D. et al. (2010). Heterogeneity of cognitive trajectories in diverse older persons. Psychology and Aging, 25, 606-619.
21. Phillips, L. H., MacLean, R. D. J. and Allen, R. (2002). Age and the understanding of emotions: neuropsychological and sociocognitive perspectives. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 57B, 526-530.
22. Pillutla, M. M. and Murnighan, J. K. (1996). Unfairness, anger, and spite: emotional rejections of ultimatum offers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 208-224.
23. Raz, N. et al. (2005). Regional brain changes in aging healthy adults: general trends, individual differences, and modifiers. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1676-1689. (Pubitemid 41447032)
24. Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E. and Cohen, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300, 1755-1758.
25. Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J. P., Stephan, K. E.,Dolan, R. J. and Frith, C. D. (2006). Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature, 439, 466-469.
26. Slembeck, T. (1999). Reputations and Fairness in Bargaining: Experimental Evidence from a Repeated Ultimatum Game with Fixed Opponents. Discussion Paper no. 9904. St. Gallen, Switzerland: Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
27. Stanley, J. T. and Isaacowitz, D. M. (2011). Age-related differences in profiles of mood-change trajectories. Developmental Psychology, 47, 318-330.
28. Sullivan, S. and Ruffman, T. (2004). Social understanding: how does it fare with advancing years? British Journal of Psychology, 95, 1-18.
29. Sutter, M. S. and Kocher, M. G. (2007). Trust and trustworthiness across different age groups. Games and Economic Behavior, 57, 364-382.
30. Wilmoth, J. M. and Longino, C. F. (2006). Demographic trends that will shape US policy in the twenty-first century. Research on Aging, 28, 269-288.