Contagion of pro- and anti-social behavior among peers and the role of social proximity

Abstract

This paper uses a novel experimental design to study the contagion of pro-and antisocial behavior and the role of social proximity among peers. Across systematic variations thereof, we find that antisocial behavior is generally more contagious than pro-social behavior. Surprisingly, we also find that social proximity amplifies the contagion of antisocial behavior more strongly than the contagion of pro-social behavior, and that antisocial individuals are most susceptible to behavioral contagion of other antisocial peers. These findings paired with the methodological contribution are informative for the design of effective norm-based policy interventions directed at facilitating (reducing) pro-(anti-)social behavior in social and economic environments.

Prosocial Influence and Opportunistic Conformity in Adolescents and Young Adults

“…Finally, opportunistic conformity (the tendency to conform with selfish norms more than prosocial norms) has been observed in a number of previous studies in adults (Charness et al, 2019;Croson & Shang, 2008;Dimant, 2019) as well as in the adult sample analyzed here (see Section 9 in the Supplemental Material). However, we found that midadolescents displayed no signs of a directional asymmetry in social influence.…”

“…These conditions were included to potentially induce more prosocial or selfish behavior, respectively (Nook et al, 2016;Wei et al, 2016), and thus to assess possible age effects on opportunistic conformity (Charness et al, 2019;Croson & Shang, 2008;Dimant, 2019). Specifically, the observed donation was a random number in the relevant interval: observed donation ∈ [(donation 1 + 1), 45] for prosocial-influence trials and observed donation ∈ [(donation 1 -1), 5] for selfish-influence trials.…”

“…For example, adults adjusted their contributions to a public good (i.e., a public radio station) more in line with other individuals' contributions when informed that others had contributed less than them, compared with when others had given more (Croson & Shang, 2008). Similarly, adults have been shown to conform more to antisocial relative to prosocial behavior (Dimant, 2019) and to align their trust-related decisions with others more when this allows them to earn more (Charness et al, 2019).…”

“…First, hypothetical and real prosocial behaviors have been shown to be frequently unrelated (e.g., Böckler, Tusche, & Singer, 2016). Second, real costs are known to introduce an asymmetry in the way adults conform to the behavior of other individuals, leading them to preferentially adapt to selfish norms (which involve monetary benefits), relative to prosocial ones (which involve monetary costs; Charness, Naef, & Sontuoso, 2019; Croson & Shang, 2008; Dimant, 2019). On the other hand, relative to adults, adolescents have been frequently suggested to be more concerned with conforming and fitting in with other people, that is, to be more wary of the social costs and benefits of their actions (Blakemore, 2018), possibly at the expense of monetary concerns.…”

Reflecting glory or deflecting stigma? The interplay between status and social proximity in peer evaluations

“…A better understanding of how audiences shape status dynamics is important to mitigate the tension between achievement and ascription that is at the core of meritocratic evaluative settings-whereby audiences are supposed to justify their deliberations based on standards that can be articulated independently of available options [11]. In addition, understanding how audience evaluations may change with the degree of scrutiny to which they are amenable seems crucial in light of ever-increasing calls for transparency and fairness in public life [19]. It is therefore worthwhile to probe the interaction between candidates' status and audience-candidate connectivity, particularly if one considers that social proximity between producers and audience members is a constitutive feature of peer-based evaluative settings.…”