In Others' Shoes: Do Individual Differences in Empathy and Theory of Mind Shape Social Preferences?

Abstract

Abundant evidence across the behavioral and social sciences suggests that there are substantial individual differences in pro-social behavior. However, little is known about the psychological mechanisms that underlie social preferences. This paper investigates whether empathy and Theory of Mind shape individual differences in pro-social behavior as conventionally observed in neutrally framed social science experiments. Our results show that individual differences in the capacity for empathy do not shape social preferences. The results qualify the role of Theory of Mind in strategic interaction. We do not only show that fair individuals exhibit more accurate beliefs about the behavior of others but that Theory of Mind can be effectively used to pursue both self-interest and pro-social goals depending on the principle objectives of a person.

Individual Differences in Good Manners Rather Than Compassion Predict Fair Allocations of Wealth in the Dictator Game

“…Specifically, polite individuals behaved in accordance with fair distributions of wealth in the dictator game, whereas individuals with greater empathic concern were no more likely than others to allocate greater wealth to a partner after controlling for their good manners. The absence of a role for empathic concern fits with recent findings in which the capacity for empathy did not predict social preferences in neutrally framed dictator games (Artinger et al, ).…”

“…Specifically, polite individuals behaved in accordance with fair distributions of wealth in the dictator game, whereas individuals with greater empathic concern were no more likely than others to allocate greater wealth to a partner after controlling for their good manners. The absence of a role for empathic concern fits with recent findings in which the capacity for empathy did not predict social preferences in neutrally framed dictator games (Artinger et al, 2014). Likewise, our results mirror the divergence of two correlates of real-world helping behaviors: dispositional empathic concern, the tendency to experience compassionate reactions to the needs of others, and the principle of care, the tendency to endorse a moral position of helping others (Wilhelm & Bekkers, 2010).…”

“…From this psychological perspective, the motivations that underlie altruistic allocations of wealth in the dictator game may be driven by emotional concern for others. For example, Edele, Dziobek, and Keller () found that self‐report measures of affective empathy, or the experience of feelings congruent with another's emotional situation, predicted the amount of money shared with a partner in the dictator game, although this has not been the case in other studies (Artinger, Exadaktylos, Koppel, & Sääksvuori, ).…”

Fair and unfair punishers coexist in the Ultimatum Game

“…The Ultimatum Game (UG)7 has been one of the most prolific set-ups for unraveling the nature of human fairness over the last years13589101112131415161718. In this game, one player (the proposer) proposes a way to split a sum of money with another player (the responder).…”

The hidden side of the Ultimatum Game: The role of motivations and mind-reading in a two-level one-shot Ultimatum Game

“…These studies showed that subjects' behaviour is not only a function of personal dispositions, but also depends on the context and the consequences of the other players' behaviour. More recently, Artinger, Exadaktylos, Koppel, and Sääksvuori (2014) investigated mind-reading in the wider framework of the Theory of Mind (ToM), stating that "utilizing ToM, the decision maker constructs the mental states of others making inferences about beliefs, intentions, and emotions".…”