In social interactions, the reciprocity norm implies to adjust one’s behavior to that of the other agents. Conversely, behaving according to self-interest involves taking into account the reciprocity principle only if it does not hinder the achievement of one’s goals. However, reciprocity and self-interest may conflict with each other, as when returning a kind action involves sacrificing the possibility to achieve a personal objective. The conflict could be exacerbated by some contextual factors, such as competitive pressures. This study investigated, in a competitive interaction context, which principle prevails when the two conflict. To this end, 276 unpaid participants (M = 138) took part in a two-stage experiment entailing a simulated interaction with a fictitious opponent, which behaved selfishly, fairly or altruistically toward them during the first stage. Participants had to decide whether or not to reciprocate the opponent’s previous behavior, which in the critical experimental conditions conflicted with the goal to successfully complete the experiment. So, they were faced with a moral dilemma. Competition degree was manipulated to make the conflict between reciprocity and self-interest more or less harsh. Moreover, we tested whether the putative effect of experimental manipulation was mediated by changes in context-related affective states and personal beliefs about morality. Results showed that decision-making was principally influenced by reciprocity. Regardless of the competition degree, participants preferred to engage in reciprocal behavior even when this compromised their personal interest. Affective states and beliefs changed in response to the experimental manipulation, but they did not mediate the effect of the independent variable on decision-making.
BaumeisterR. F.VohsK. D.Nathan DeWallC.ZhangL. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2), 167–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307301033
4.
BeckerG. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. The University of Chicago Press.
5.
Ben-NerA.PuttermanL.KongF.MaganD. (2004). Reciprocity in a two-part dictator game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 53(3), 333–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2002.12.001
6.
BergJ.DickhautJ.McCabeK. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1995.1027
7.
BlessH.FiedlerK. (2006). Mood and the regulation of information processing and behavior. In: ForgasJ. P. (Ed.), Hearts and minds: Affective influences on social cognition and behaviour (pp. 65–84). Psychology Press.
BurnsT. R.BaumgartnerT.DeVilleP. (1985). Man, decisions, and society. Gordon & Breach.
10.
ChaoM. (2018). Intentions-based reciprocity to monetary and non-monetary gifts. Games, 9(4), Article 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/g9040074
11.
CurryO. S. (2016). Morality as cooperation: A problem-centred approach. In ShackelfordT. K.HansenR. D. (Eds.), The evolution of morality (pp. 27–51). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19671-8_2
12.
DeStenoD.BartlettM. Y.BaumannJ.WilliamsL. A.DickensL. (2010). Gratitude as moral sentiment: Emotion-guided cooperation in economic exchange. Emotion, 10(2), 289–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017883
13.
DiederichA. (2003). Decision making under conflict: Decision time as a measure of conflict strength. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(1), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03196481
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1086/257897
16.
EngelmannD.StrobelM. (2010). Inequality aversion and reciprocity in moonlighting games. Games, 1(4), 459–477. https://doi.org/10.3390/g1040459
17.
EwoldsenD. R.EnoC. A.OkdieB. M.VelezJ. A.GuadagnoR. E.DeCosterJ. (2012). Effect of playing violent video games cooperatively or competitively on subsequent cooperative behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15(5), 277–280. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0308
18.
FalkA.FehrE.FischbacherU. (2008). Testing theories of fairness—intentions matter, games and economic behavior, testing theories of fairness-intentions matter. Games and Economic Behavior, 62(1), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2007.06.001
19.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
20.
FehrE.CamererC. (2007). Social neuroeconomics: The neural circuitry of social preferences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(10), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.09.002
ForgasJ. P. (2016). Affective influences on moral decisions: Mood effects on selfishness versus fairness. In ForgasJ. P.JussimL.Van LangeP. A. M. (Eds.), The social psychology of morality (pp. 152–170). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315644189-10
24.
ForgasJ. P. (2017). Mood effects on cognition: Affective influences on the content and process of information processing and behavior. In JeonM. (Ed.), Emotions and affect in human factors and human-computer interaction (pp. 89–122). Academic Press, Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801851-4.00003-3
25.
ForgasJ. P.BowerG. H. (1987). Mood effects on person-perception judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.53
26.
ForgasJ. P.TanH. B. (2013). To give or to keep? Affective influences on selfishness and fairness in computer-mediated interactions in the dictator game and the ultimatum game. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.017
27.
GintisH.HenrichJ.BowlesS.BoydR.FehrE. (2008). Strong reciprocity and the roots of human morality. Social Justice Research, 21(2), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0067-y
28.
GrantA. M. (2014). Give and take: A revolutionary approach to success. Phoenix / Orion Books.
29.
GreeneJ. (2015). Beyond point-and-shoot morality: Why cognitive (Neuro)Science matters for ethics. The Law and Ethics of Human Rights, 9(2), 141–172. https://doi.org/10.1515/lehr-2015-0011
30.
HarsanyiJ. C. (1977). Morality and the theory of rational behavior. Social Research, 44(4), 623–656.
31.
HayesA. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100
32.
HomansG. C. (1961). Social behavior and its elementary forms. Harcourt, Brace & World.
33.
HowellD. C. (2007). The analysis of missing data. In OuthwaiteW.TurnerS. (Eds.), Handbook of social science methodology. Sage.
34.
JohnstonM.KrettenauerT. (2011). Moral self and moral emotion expectancies as predictors of anti- and prosocial behaviour in adolescence: A case for mediation?European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 8(2), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405621003619945
KjellO. N. E.ThompsonS. (2013). Exploring the impact of positive and negative emotions on cooperative behaviour in a Prisoner’s Dilemma Game. PeerJ, 1, Article e231. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.231
37.
KornL.BöhmR.MeierN. W.BetschC. (2020). Vaccination as a social contract. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(26), 14890–14899. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1919666117
LiuC.W.GaoG.AgarwalR. (2018). Is it better to give than to receive? Leveraging digital social connections for healthy behavior. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3162223
40.
MarkowskyE.BebloM. (2022). When do we observe a gender gap in competition entry? A meta-analysis of the experimental literature. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 198, 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.03.030
41.
MartinezL. F.JaegerD. S. (2016). Ethical decision making in counterfeit purchase situations: The influence of moral awareness and moral emotions on moral judgment and purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 33(3), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcm-04-2015-1394
42.
MavinS.YusupovaM. (2020). Competition and gender: Time’s up on essentialist knowledge production. Management Learning, 52(1), 86–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507620950176
PiestS.SchreckP. (2020). Contests and unethical behavior in organizations: A review and synthesis of the empirical literature. Management Review Quarterly, 71(4), 679–721. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-020-00197-3
47.
ProserpioD.XuW.ZervasG. (2018). You get what you give: Theory and evidence of reciprocity in the sharing economy. Quantitative Marketing and Economics16(4), 371–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-018-9201-9
48.
RickerW. (1962). The theory of political coalitions. Yale University Press.
49.
RosemanI. J. (2008). Motivations and emotivations: Approach, avoidance, and other tendencies in motivated and emotional behavior. In ElliotA. J. (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 343–366). Psychology Press.
SchererK. R. (1984). On the nature and function of emotion: A component process approach. In SchererK. R.EkmanP. E. (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 293–317). Erlbaum.
52.
SchererK. R. (2000). Psychological models of emotion. In BorodJ. C., (Ed.), The neuropsychology of emotion (pp. 137–162). Oxford University Press.
SchotterA.WeissA.ZapaterI. (1996). Fairness and survival in ultimatum and dictatorship games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 31(1), 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-2681(96)00863-3
55.
SchwarzN. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. In HigginsE. T.SorrentinoR. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior. (pp. 527–561). Guilford.
56.
SchwarzN. (2012). Feelings-as-information theory. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 289–308). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n15
57.
SchwarzN.CloreG. (1988). How do I feel about it? Informative functions of affective states. In FiedlerK.ForgasJ. (Eds.), Affect, cognition and social behavior (pp. 44–62). Hogrefe International.
ShurchkovO.EckelC. C. (2017). Gender differences in behavioral traits and labor market outcomes. In The Oxford Handbook of Women and the Economy.
60.
SterelnyK.FraserB. (2017). Evolution and moral realism. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 68(4), 981–1006. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axv060
61.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S.UllmanJ. B. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson.
62.
TassoA.SarloM.LottoL. (2017). Emotions associated with counterfactual comparisons drive decision-making in Footbridge-type moral dilemmas. Motivation and Emotion, 41(3), 410–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-017-9607-9
WangD.KongX.NieX.ShangY.XuS.HeY.MaguireP.HuY. (2020). The effects of emotion and social consensus on moral decision-making. Ethics & Behavior, 31(8), 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2020.1830404
67.
WeinerB. (2014). The attribution approach to emotion and motivation: History, hypotheses, home runs, headaches/heartaches. Emotion Review, 6(4), 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914534502
68.
ZeelenbergM.NelissenR. M. A.BreugelmansS. M.PietersR. (2008). On emotion specificity in decision making: Why feeling is for doing. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(1), 18–27.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
