Closeness is enough for friends, but not mates or kin: mate and kinship premiums in India and U.S.

Generosity and livelihoods: Dictator game evidence on the multidimensional nature of sharing among the Kenyan Maasai

“…With regard to social distance, we could replicate in a non‐WEIRD population (the Kenyan Maasai) previous social discounting studies with WEIRD samples (Jones & Rachlin, ; Strombach et al, , ; Goeree et al ; Margittai et al, , ) that generosity towards others declines across social distance. Our social discounting results are consistent with those obtained from other non‐WEIRD populations, including Indian (Hackmann, Danvers & Hruschka, ), Singaporean (Pornpattananangkul et al, ), and Banghadeshi participants (Hruschka et al, ), but they extended previous results by the observation that social discounting was not uniform across all goods and commodities. Some resources like grass and money are more readily shared than other resources such as milk and cows between people considered socially close .…”

“…With regard to social distance, we could replicate in a non-WEIRD population (the Kenyan Maasai) previous social discounting studies with WEIRD samples (Jones & Rachlin, 2006;Strombach et al, 2014Strombach et al, , 2015Goeree et al 2010;Margittai et al, 2015Margittai et al, , 2018) that generosity towards others declines across social distance. Our social discounting results are consistent with those obtained from other non-WEIRD populations, including Indian (Hackmann, Danvers & Hruschka, 2015),…”

Impact of Genetic Relatedness and Emotional Closeness on Intergenerational Relations

“…The few evolutionary studies that have examined the association between emotional closeness and kinship investment discovered a kin premium. This expression means that although kin are typically closer to each other than non-kin, kin also help each other more than non-kin, irrespective of relationship closeness (Curry, Roberts, & Dunbar, 2013;Hackman, Danvers, & Hruschka, 2015;Pollet, Roberts, & Dunbar, 2013).…”

The Amplifying Role of Need in Giving Decisions

“…Participants. Participants were drawn from three prior published studies and one direct replication: one conducted on U.S. undergraduate students, two conducted online recruiting individuals from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (Mturk) in the U.S., and another conducted through Mturk in India (Hackman et al, 2015). The Mturk workers were paid $0.50 for a 15-minute survey.…”

“…Experimental studies have shown that a range of proxies for a partner's need at varying times scales (e.g. being sick, being poor, a recent loss) increase both self-reported likelihood of helping the partner (Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama, 1994;Hackman, Danvers, & Hruschka, 2015;Korchmaros & Kenny, 2006) and transfers of actual money (Howe, Murphy, Gerkey, & West, 2016). Moreover, observational studies of Tsimane forager-horticulturists in Bolivia show that families with objectively greater need-measured as daily consumption RUNNING HEAD: Need Amplifies Giving relative to production of calories over a year-are more likely to receive food from other households and are less likely to share food outside the household (Hooper, Gurven, Winking, & Kaplan, 2015).…”