No abstract

Abstract:Recent behavioral economics studies have shown that third parties compensate players in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust games. However, there are almost no studies about what drives third parties to compensate victims in such games. It can be argued that compensation is a form of helping; and helping behavior, in a variety of forms, has been widely researched, especially with regard to motivators. Previous work on helping behavior has focused on empathic concern as a primary driver. In sharp contrast, anger is often seen as an antisocial motivator resulting in aggression. However, other research has shown that moral outrage, anger evoked by the violation of a moral rule or a social norm, can lead to the punishment of a perpetrator, often described as altruistic or pro-social punishment. Some of the motivations for pro-social punishment, namely a concern for justice or the restoration of community values, can also be realized through victim compensation. We therefore propose the hypothesis that moral outrage leads to compensating behavior above and beyond what is predicted by empathic concern, but only when a social norm has been violated. We test this hypothesis in two studies, both of which use modified trust games in which the investor experiences a loss due either to a social norm violation or some other cause. Study 1 shows that trait moral outrage predicts third-party compensatory behavior above and beyond empathic concern, but only when a social norm is violated. To better understand the causal mechanism, Study 2 directly manipulated moral outrage, showing again that moral outrage leads to compensation, but only when a social norm is violated.

In low- and middle-income countries, poor autonomy prevents women from making financial decisions, which may impact their access to improved sanitation facilities. Inadequate access to improved sanitation disproportionately affects women’s and children’s health and wellbeing. Although socio-cultural factors are known contributors to gender inequity, social beliefs that potentially motivate or dissuade women from making sanitation-related household decisions are not well understood. These beliefs may vary across settlement types. To empower more women to make sanitation-related decisions, the relevant socio-cultural norms and underlying social beliefs need to be addressed. In this mixed methods study, we explored women’s role in sanitation-related decision making in three settlement types, urban slums, peri-urban, and rural communities in Bihar. Trained qualitative researchers conducted six focus group discussions with women of two age groups: 18–30 years old, and 45–65 years old to understand the norm-focused factors around women’s role in getting a toilet for their household. Using insights generated from these group discussions, we developed and conducted a theory-driven survey in 2528 randomly selected participants, to assess the social beliefs regarding women making toilet construction decisions in these communities. Overall, 45% of the respondents reported making joint decisions to build toilets that involved both men and women household members. More women exclusively led this decision-making process in peri-urban (26%) and rural areas (35%) compared to urban slums (12%). Social beliefs that men commonly led household decisions to build toilets were negatively associated with women’s participation in decision making in urban slums (adjusted prevalence ratio, aPR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.42, 0.68). Qualitative insights highlighted normative expectations to take joint decisions with elders, especially in joint family settings. Surrounding norms that limited women’s physical mobility and access to peers undermined their confidence in making large financial decisions involved in toilet construction. Women were more likely to be involved in sanitation decisions in peri-urban and rural contexts. Women’s involvement in such decisions was perceived as widely acceptable. This highlights the opportunity to increase women’s participation in sanitation decision making, particularly in urban contexts. As more women get involved in decisions to build toilets, highlighting this norm may encourage gender-equitable engagement in sanitation-related decisions in low-resource settings.

Many global environmental threats are driven by human behavior and require behavioral solutions. Researchers in the environmental field have recently explored the behavioral sciences as core to changing behavior for conservation, yet leveraging human emotions remains an underused tool for behavior change compared to others like social norms. Humans experience a range of emotions that each cause distinct patterns of behavior depending on unique contexts that evolved over time; this presents an opportunity to leverage emotions to support behavior-change goals. The existing literature and models of behavior change offer minimal guidance about which specific emotions to use in which contexts and how those emotions might lead to certain behaviors. In the environmental field specifically, there have been mixed recommendations on using emotions, resulting from an incomplete understanding of the causal relationship between emotions, contexts, and environmental behaviors. We propose that adopting a functionalist approach, which describes emotions as functional states designed to produce outcomes in specific contexts, will help to unlock emotions as a tool for conservation. To demonstrate this approach, we identified fear, hope, the prospect of shame, pride, anger, and interest as particularly relevant for environmental behavior change. Based on an understanding of each emotion's function, we developed an emotion-behavior pathway that described the expected outcome of using an emotion in a particular context. Applying these emotional-behavior pathways can allow both researchers and practitioners to advance the science of shifting environmental behavior through emotion.