Overall, we find that our immediate environment has a significant impact when making prosocial decisions, and that poorer environments can drive greater generosity.
We found that:
• People were more willing to help in poor environments.
• Opportunity costs were distinctly encoded for self and other, and for both environments.
• Those higher in empathy and utilitarian thinking were generally more likely to stop to help in both environments.
Looking for a PhD? Interested in cognitive computational neuroscience, motivation and decision-making? See our project listed in the BBSRC MIBTP competition for funding for a 4-year PhD in the @msnlab.bsky.social in the @thechbh.bsky.social. Deadline 27/11. More info: tinyurl.com/5d5vz8m7
Across 3 studies (n=500+), we tested how willing people were to stop a movie to put in effort to help someone else while we changed the richness of the environment. In poor environments, opportunities to help were generally lower in quality, whereas in rich environments, they were generally higher.
We wondered whether these same mechanisms drive our decisions for when we stop to help other people, and if they did so more strongly than decisions for when to help ourselves. 🤔
Existing tasks that measure prosocial behaviour often ask people to choose between two options: to help or not help. However, theories from behavioural ecology suggest that our willingness to help isn't fixed, but changes depending on the kinds of opportunities we encounter in our environment.
🎉 New paper in Nature Communications 🎉
rdcu.be/e24jT
Does our environment influence how likely we are to help others?
🌟 Research Assistant opportunity 🌟
I'm looking for an RA to support research @thechbh.bsky.social on social information seeking and decision making, including fMRI and MEG 🧠
Details: tinyurl.com/chbh-ra-uob
Deadline: 20th July ⏳
Start: From September 🗓️
Please share 🔁