Surveillance cues do not enhance altruistic behavior among anonymous strangers in the field if unaware of experimenters' vigilance

Surveillance cues do not enhance altruistic behavior among anonymous strangers in the field. Erik Koornneef et al. PLoS One, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325144787_Surveillance_cues_do_not_enhance_altruistic_behavior_among_anonymous_strangers_in_the_field

Abstract: The degree of altruistic behavior among strangers is an evolutionary puzzle. A prominent explanation is the evolutionary legacy hypothesis according to which an evolved reciprocity-based psychology affects behavior even when reciprocity is impossible, i.e., altruistic behavior in such instances is maladaptive. Empirical support for this explanation comes from laboratory experiments showing that surveillance cues, e.g., photographs of watching eyes, increase altruistic behavior. A competing interpretation for this evidence, however, is that the cues signal the experimenter's expectations and participants, aware of being monitored, intentionally behave more altruistically to boost their reputation. Here we report the first results from a field experiment on the topic in which participants are unaware they are being monitored and reciprocity is precluded. The experiment investigates the impact of surveillance cues on a textbook example of altruistic behavior-hand hygiene prior to treating a 'patient'. We find no evidence surveillance cues affect hand hygiene, despite using different measures of hand-hygiene quality and cues that have been previously shown to be effective. We argue that surveillance cues may have an effect only when participants have reasons to believe they are actually monitored. Thus they cannot support claims altruistic behavior between strangers is maladaptive.

From 2014: Undergraduates reported that the average university student (a) saw dating infidelity as more acceptable and (b) engaged in unfaithful acts more frequently than they themselves did

From 2014: Pluralistic ignorance and misperception of social norms concerning cheating in dating relationships. Susan Boon, Sarah Watkins, Rowan Sciban. Personal Relationships, https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12044

Abstract: Two studies tested the hypothesis that beliefs about infidelity in dating relationships reflect pluralistic ignorance, a misperception in which people mistakenly believe that their own personal attitudes and behavior differ from others' when they do not. Consistent with pluralistic ignorance findings in other domains, undergraduates reported that the average university student (a) saw dating infidelity as more acceptable and (b) engaged in unfaithful acts more frequently than they themselves did. Neither type of infidelity (sexual, emotional, both sexual and emotional, or unspecified; Study 1, N = 176) nor motivated reasoning (i.e., defensiveness; Study 2, N = 359) moderated this pattern of results. Possible sources of misperceived norms concerning fidelity in dating relationships and the implications of such misperceptions are discussed.

Washington, D.C., harbors the greatest share of psychopaths in the US, "a fact that can be readily explained either by its very high population density or by the type of person who may be drawn a literal seat of power."

Murphy, Ryan, Psychopathy by U.S. State (May 26, 2018). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3185182

Abstract: Rentfrow et al. (2013) constructs a cross-section of the “Big Five” personality traits and demonstrates their relationship with outcomes variables for the continental United States and the District of Columbia. Hyatt et al. (Forthcoming) creates a means of describing psychopathy in terms of the Big Five personality traits. When these two findings are combined, a state-level estimate of psychopathy is produced. Among the typical predictions made regarding psychopathy, the variable with the closest univariate relationship with this new statistical aggregate is the percentage of the population in the state living in an urban area. There is not a clear univariate relationship with homicide rates.

Keywords: Psychopathy, Personality Psychology, Geographical Psychology, Big Five Personality Traits
JEL Classification: R19, D91

Rolf Degen summarizes (https://twitter.com/DegenRolf/status/1007554998866149377): Washington, D.C., harbors the greatest share of psychopaths in the US, "a fact that can be readily explained either by its very high population density or by the type of person who may be drawn a literal seat of power."

A widely held belief about human communication is that specific verbal and nonverbal behaviors signal deception; review of experiments shows this is a mistake

Scientific Evidence and Cue Theories in Deception Research: Reconciling Findings From Meta-Analyses and Primary Experiments. Timothy R. Levine. International Journal of Communication, Vol 12 (2018), http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/7838

Abstract: A widely held belief about human communication is that specific verbal and nonverbal behaviors signal deception. This belief is held as folk wisdom across many cultures. It is also often portrayed as accepted social scientific knowledge in academic works. Explanations for why specific behaviors signal deception fall under the umbrella label of “cue theories.” This commentary essay reviews the extensive social scientific theory and research on the utility of deception cues for detecting deception. Oddly, conclusions from meta-analyses do not align with the findings of the primary studies that comprise the meta-analyses. The divergent conclusions from meta-analyses and primary studies challenge both the validity of cue-based lie detection and what counts as the critical unit of scientific evidence in research. The implications for social science theory and research are discussed. Suggestions for improved applied lie detection are also provided.

Keywords: lying, nonverbal communication, meta-analysis, significance testing