Artificial surveillance cues do not increase generosity: two meta-analyses

Evolution and Human Behavior

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 144-153

  Northover, Stefanie B ^a,b   Pedersen, William C ^c   Cohen, Adam B ^b   Andrews, Paul W ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cues of being watched; Eyespots; Generosity; Meta analysis; Observation cues; Surveillance cues

Indexed keywords

EID: 84978870212     PISSN: 10905138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.07.001     Document Type: Review

References (72)

1. Aiello, JR, Svec, CM, Computer monitoring and work performance: Extending the social facilitation framework to electronic presence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23 (1993), 537–548, 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01102.x.
2. Baillon, A, Selim, A, van Dolder, D, On the social nature of eyes: The effect of social cues in interaction and individual choice tasks. Evolution and Human Behavior 34 (2013), 146–154, 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.12.001.
3. Bateson, M, Callow, L, Holmes, JR, Redmond Roche, ML, Nettle, D, Do images of ‘watching eyes’ induce behaviour that is more pro-social or more normative? A field experiment on littering. PloS One, 8(12), 2013, e82055, 10.1371/journal.pone.0082055.
4. Bateson, M, Nettle, D, Roberts, G, Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology Letters 2 (2006), 412–414, 10.1098/rsbl.2006.0509.
5. Bateson, M, Robinson, R, Abayomi-Cole, T, Greenlees, J, O'Connor, A, Nettle, D, Watching eyes on potential litter can reduce littering: Evidence from two field experiments. PeerJ, 3, 2015, e1443, 10.7717/peerj.1443.
6. Beyfus, T, Dawson, N, Danner, C, Rawal, B, Gruber, P, Petrou, S, The use of passive visual stimuli to enhance compliance with handwashing in a perioperative setting. American Journal of Infection Control 44 (2016), 496–499, 10.1016/j.ajic.2015.12.021.
7. Bittner, J, Kulesz, M, Health promotion messages: The role of social presence for food choices. Appetite 87 (2015), 336–343, 10.1016/j.appet.2015.01.001.
8. Bolton, P, Rivas, K, Prachar, V, Jones, M, The observer effect: Can being watched enhance compliance with hand hygiene behaviour? A randomised trial. Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management 10 (2015), GS14–GS16 (Retrieved from www.achsm.org.au/DownloadDocument.ashx?DocumentID=2187).
9. Bond, CF Jr., Titus, LJ, Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies. Psychological Bulletin 94:2 (1983), 265–292, 10.1037/0033-2909.94.2.265.
10. Bourrat, P, Baumard, N, McKay, R, Surveillance cues enhance moral condemnation. Evolutionary Psychology 9:2 (2011), 193–199 (Retrieved from http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP09193199.pdf).
11. Brudermann, T, Bartel, G, Fenzl, T, Seebauer, S, Eyes on social norms: A field study on an honor system for newspaper sale. Theory and Decision 79 (2015), 285–306, 10.1007/s11238-014-9460-1.
12. Burnham, TC, Engineering altruism: A theoretical and experimental investigation of anonymity and gift giving. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 50 (2003), 133–144, 10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00044-6.
13. Burnham, TC, Hare, B, Engineering human cooperation. Human Nature 18 (2007), 88–108, 10.1007/s12110-007-9012-2.
14. Cai, W, Huang, X, Wu, S, Kou, Y, Dishonest behavior is not affected by an image of watching eyes. Evolution and Human Behavior 36 (2015), 110–116, 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.09.007.
15. Carbon, C, Hesslinger, VM, Bateson et al.'s (2006) cues-of-being-watched paradigm revisited. Swiss Journal of Psychology 70:4 (2011), 203–210, 10.1024/1421-0185/a000058.
16. Cumming, G, The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science 25 (2014), 7–29, 10.1177/0956797613504966.
17. Ekström, M, Do watching eyes affect charitable giving? Evidence from a field experiment. Experimental Economics 15 (2012), 530–546, 10.1007/s10683-011-9312-6.
18. Ernest-Jones, M, Nettle, D, Bateson, M, Effects of eye images on everyday cooperative behavior: A field experiment. Evolution and Human Behavior 32 (2011), 172–178, 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.10.006.
19. Fathi, M, Bateson, M, Nettle, D, Effects of watching eyes and norm cues on charitable giving in a surreptitious behavioral experiment. Evolutionary Psychology 12 (2014), 878–887, 10.1177/147470491401200502.
20. Fehr, E, Schneider, F, Eyes are on us, but nobody cares: Are eye cues relevant for strong reciprocity?. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277 (2010), 1315–1323, 10.1098/rspb.2009.1900.
21. Francey, D, Bergmüller, R, Images of eyes enhance investments in a real-life public good. PloS One, 7(5), 2012, e37397, 10.1371/.
22. Franzen, A, Berner, D, Paulenz, N, Steiner, S, “watching eyes”-effekte an recyclingsammelstellen. 2015 (Unpublished manuscript).
23. Fujii, T, Takagishi, H, Koizumi, M, Okada, H, The effect of direct and indirect monitoring on generosity among preschoolers. Scientific Reports, 5, 2015, 9025, 10.1038/srep09025.
24. Haley, KJ, Fessler, DMT, Nobody's watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior 26 (2005), 245–256, 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.01.002.
25. Hedges, LV, Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics 6 (1981), 107–128, 10.3102/10769986006002107.
26. Hoffman, G, Forlizzi, J, Ayal, S, Steinfeld, A, Antanitis, J, Hochman, G,. Finkenaur, J, Robot presence and human honesty: Experimental evidence. Proceedings of the tenth annual ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction - HRI ‘15, 2015, 10.1145/2696454.2696487.
27. Horita, Y, Takezawa, M, Observation enhances third-party punishment only among people who were not hot-tempered. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science 5 (2014), 5–8, 10.5178/lebs.2014.28.
28. Ioannidis, JPA, Trikalinos, TA, An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings. Clinical Trials 4 (2007), 245–253, 10.1177/1740774507079441.
29. Jenni, KE, Loewenstein, G, Explaining the “identifiable victim effect”. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 14 (1997), 235–257, 10.1023/A:1007740225484.
30. Jolij, J, de Haan, T, Being watched doesn't make you nicer: No effect of visible and invisible eye primes on prosocial behavior in a masked priming study. 2014 (Unpublished manuscript. (Retrieved from) www.jolij.com/wp-content/uploads/JolijDeHaan2014.docx).
31. Keller, J, Pfattheicher, S, Vigilant self-regulation, cues of being watched and cooperativeness. European Journal of Personality 25 (2011), 363–372, 10.1002/per.797.
32. Kuliga, S, Tanja-Dijkstra, K, Verhoeven, F, Wa(tc)sh out! The effects of cues of being watched on implicit activation of norms and hand disinfection behaviour. Paper presented at the 9th biennial conference on environmental psychology, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 2011 (Abstract retrieved from http://proceedings.envpsych2011.eu/files/doc/258.pdf).
33. Kurzban, R, The social psychophysics of cooperation: Nonverbal communication in a public goods game. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 25:4 (2001), 241–259, 10.1023/A:1012563421824.
34. Kurzban, R, Burton-Chellew, M, West, S, The evolution of altruism in humans. Annual Review of Psychology 66 (2015), 575–599, 10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015355.
35. Kurzban, R, DeScioli, P, O'Brien, E, Audience effects on moralistic punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior 28 (2007), 75–84, 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.06.001.
36. Latané, B, The psychology of social impact. The American Psychologist 36 (1981), 343–356, 10.1037//0003-066X.36.4.343.
37. Lipsey, MW, Wilson, DB, Practical meta-analysis. 2001, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
38. Manesi, Z, Van Lange, P, Pollet, T, Butterfly eyespots: Their potential influence on aesthetic preferences and conservation attitudes. PloS One, 10, 2015, e0141433, 10.1371/journal.pone.0141433.
39. Manesi, Z, Van Lange, P, Pollet, T, Eyes wide open: Only eyes that pay attention promote prosocial behavior. Evolutionary Psychology 14 (2016), 1–15, 10.1177/1474704916640780.
40. Matland, R, Murray, G, I only have eyes for you: Does implicit social pressure increase voter turnout?. Political Psychology, 2015, 10.1111/pops.12275.
41. Matsugasaki, K, Tsukamoto, W, Ohtsubo, Y, Two failed replications of the watching eyes effect. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science 6 (2015), 17–20, 10.5178/lebs.2015.36.
42. Mifune, N, Hashimoto, H, Yamagishi, T, Altruism toward in-group members as a reputation mechanism. Evolution and Human Behavior 31 (2010), 109–117, 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.09.004.
43. Nettle, D, Harper, Z, Kidson, A, Stone, R, Penton-Voak, IS, Bateson, M, 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 34 (2013), 35–40, 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.08.004.
44. Nettle, D, Nott, K, Bateson, M, ‘Cycle thieves, we are watching you’: Impact of a simple signage intervention against bicycle theft. PloS One, 7(12), 2012, e51738, 10.1371/journal.pone.0051738.
45. Northover, S, Pedersen, W, Andrews, P, Cohen, A, Effect of artificial surveillance cues on reported moral judgment. 2016 (Manuscript in preparation).
46. Oda, R, Kato, Y, Hiraishi, K, The watching-eye effect on prosocial lying. Evolutionary Psychology, 13, 2015, 10.1177/1474704915594959.
47. Oda, R, Niwa, Y, Honma, A, Hiraishi, K, An eye-like painting enhances the expectation of a good reputation. Evolution and Human Behavior 32 (2011), 166–171, 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.11.002.
48. Panagopoulos, C, I've got my eyes on you: Implicit social-pressure cues and prosocial behavior. Political Psychology 35:1 (2014), 23–33, 10.1111/pops.12074.
49. Panagopoulos, C, Watchful eyes: Implicit observability cues and voting. Evolution and Human Behavior 35 (2014), 279–284, 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.02.008.
50. Panagopoulos, C, A closer look at eyespot effects on voter turnout: Reply to Matland and Murray. Political Psychology, 2015, 10.1111/pops.12281.
51. Pedersen, R, No effects of artificial surveillance cues or social proofs on survey participation rates. Working paper, 2016, University of Copenhagen.
52. Pfattheicher, S, A regulatory focus perspective on reputational concerns: The impact of prevention-focused self-regulation. Motivation and Emotion 39 (2015), 932–942, 10.1007/s11031-015-9501-2.
53. Pfattheicher, S, Keller, J, The watching eyes phenomenon: The role of a sense of being seen and public self-awareness. European Journal of Social Psychology 45 (2015), 560–566, 10.1002/ejsp.2122.
54. Piazza, J, Bering, J, The effects of perceived anonymity on altruistic punishment. Evolutionary Psychology 6 (2008), 487–501 (Retrieved from http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP06487501.pdf).
55. Powell, KL, Roberts, G, Nettle, D, Eye images increase charitable donations: Evidence from an opportunistic field experiment in a supermarket. Ethology 118 (2012), 1096–1101, 10.1111/eth.12011.
56. Putz, VR, The effects of different modes of supervision on vigilance behaviour. British Journal of Psychology 66:2 (1975), 157–160, 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1975.tb01449.x.
57. Raihani, NJ, Bshary, R, A positive effect of flowers rather than eye images in a large-scale, cross-cultural dictator game. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279 (2012), 3556–3564, 10.1098/rspb.2012.0758.
58. Rigdon, M, Ishii, K, Watabe, M, Kitayama, S, Minimal social cues in the dictator game. Journal of Economic Psychology 30 (2009), 358–367, 10.1016/j.joep.2009.02.002.
59. Risko, EF, Kingstone, A, Eyes wide shut: Implied social presence, eye tracking and attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 73 (2011), 291–296, 10.3758/s13414-010-0042-1.
60. Rutjens, B, van Elk, M, Effect of eye-primes on religious belief. 2015 (Unpublished raw data).
61. Satow, K, Social approval and helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 11 (1975), 501–509, 10.1016/0022-1031(75)90001-3.
62. Schelling, TC, The life you save may be your own. Chase, S., (eds.) Problems in public expenditure analysis, 1968, The Brookings Institute, Washington DC.
63. Smith, FG, Debruine, LM, Jones, BC, Krupp, DB, Welling, LLM, Conway, CA, Attractiveness qualifies the effect of observation on trusting behavior in an economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior 30 (2009), 393–397, 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.06.003.
64. Sparks, A, Subtle cues and economic games. Master's thesis, 2010, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario (Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/opendissertations/4321).
65. Sparks, A, Barclay, P, Eye images increase generosity, but not for long: The limited effect of a false cue. Evolution and Human Behavior 34 (2013), 317–322, 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2013.05.001.
66. Sparks, A, Barclay, P, No effect on condemnation of short or long exposure to eye images. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science 6 (2015), 13–16, 10.5178/lebs.2015.35.
67. Tane, K, Takezawa, M, Perception of human face does not induce cooperation in darkness. Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science 2 (2011), 24–27, 10.5178/lebs.2011.15.
68. Triplett, N, The dynamogenic factors in pacemaking and competition. The American Journal of Psychology 9:4 (1898), 507–533, 10.2307/1412188.
69. van Rompay, TJL, Vonk, DJ, Fransen, ML, The eye of the camera: Effects of security cameras on prosocial behavior. Environment and Behavior 41:1 (2009), 60–74, 10.1177/0013916507309996.
70. Vogt, S, Efferson, C, Berger, J, Fehr, E, Eye spots do not increase altruism in children. Evolution and Human Behavior 36 (2015), 224–231, 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.11.007.
71. White, C, Unexpected events as a cue to social surveillance. Undergraduate honors thesis, 2015, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario (Retrieved from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/psychK_uht).
72. Zajonc, RB, Social facilitation. Science 149:3681 (1965), 269–274, 10.2307/1715944.