Variation in cooperative behaviour within a single city.

Human cooperative behaviour, as assayed by decisions in experimental economic dilemmas such as the Dictator Game, is variable across human populations. Within-population variation has been less well studied, especially within industrial societies. Moreover, little is known about the extent to which...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Daniel Nettle, Agathe Colléony, Maria Cockerill
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2011-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3203179?pdf=render
id doaj-276b05504c7344a4b3105b36611c73ed
record_format Article
spelling doaj-276b05504c7344a4b3105b36611c73ed2020-11-25T02:15:41ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032011-01-01610e2692210.1371/journal.pone.0026922Variation in cooperative behaviour within a single city.Daniel NettleAgathe ColléonyMaria CockerillHuman cooperative behaviour, as assayed by decisions in experimental economic dilemmas such as the Dictator Game, is variable across human populations. Within-population variation has been less well studied, especially within industrial societies. Moreover, little is known about the extent to which community-level variation in Dictator Game behaviour relates to community-level variation in real-world social behaviour. We chose two neighbourhoods of the city of Newcastle upon Tyne that were similar in most regards, but at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of level of socioeconomic deprivation. We administered Dictator Games to randomly-selected residents, and also gathered a large number of more naturalistic measures of cooperativeness. There were dramatic differences in Dictator Game behaviour between the two neighbourhoods, with the mean allocation to the other player close to half the stake in the affluent neighbourhood, and close to one tenth of the stake in the deprived neighbourhood. Moreover, the deprived neighbourhood was also characterised by lower self-reported social capital, higher frequencies of crime and antisocial behaviour, a higher frequency of littering, and less willingness to take part in a survey or return a lost letter. On the other hand, there were no differences between the neighbourhoods in terms of the probability of helping a person who dropped an object, needed directions to a hospital, or needed to make change for a coin, and people on the streets were less likely to be alone in the deprived neighbourhood than the affluent one. We conclude that there can be dramatic local differences in cooperative behaviour within the same city, and that these need further theoretical explanation.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3203179?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Daniel Nettle
Agathe Colléony
Maria Cockerill
spellingShingle Daniel Nettle
Agathe Colléony
Maria Cockerill
Variation in cooperative behaviour within a single city.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Daniel Nettle
Agathe Colléony
Maria Cockerill
author_sort Daniel Nettle
title Variation in cooperative behaviour within a single city.
title_short Variation in cooperative behaviour within a single city.
title_full Variation in cooperative behaviour within a single city.
title_fullStr Variation in cooperative behaviour within a single city.
title_full_unstemmed Variation in cooperative behaviour within a single city.
title_sort variation in cooperative behaviour within a single city.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2011-01-01
description Human cooperative behaviour, as assayed by decisions in experimental economic dilemmas such as the Dictator Game, is variable across human populations. Within-population variation has been less well studied, especially within industrial societies. Moreover, little is known about the extent to which community-level variation in Dictator Game behaviour relates to community-level variation in real-world social behaviour. We chose two neighbourhoods of the city of Newcastle upon Tyne that were similar in most regards, but at opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of level of socioeconomic deprivation. We administered Dictator Games to randomly-selected residents, and also gathered a large number of more naturalistic measures of cooperativeness. There were dramatic differences in Dictator Game behaviour between the two neighbourhoods, with the mean allocation to the other player close to half the stake in the affluent neighbourhood, and close to one tenth of the stake in the deprived neighbourhood. Moreover, the deprived neighbourhood was also characterised by lower self-reported social capital, higher frequencies of crime and antisocial behaviour, a higher frequency of littering, and less willingness to take part in a survey or return a lost letter. On the other hand, there were no differences between the neighbourhoods in terms of the probability of helping a person who dropped an object, needed directions to a hospital, or needed to make change for a coin, and people on the streets were less likely to be alone in the deprived neighbourhood than the affluent one. We conclude that there can be dramatic local differences in cooperative behaviour within the same city, and that these need further theoretical explanation.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3203179?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT danielnettle variationincooperativebehaviourwithinasinglecity
AT agathecolleony variationincooperativebehaviourwithinasinglecity
AT mariacockerill variationincooperativebehaviourwithinasinglecity
_version_ 1724894580150632448