The purpose of this paper is to explore the question of how far costly transfers of economic benefits to others, often understood in economics as instances of (behavioural…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore the question of how far costly transfers of economic benefits to others, often understood in economics as instances of (behavioural) altruism, can be motivated by individual group status concerns, i.e. without the common reference to other‐regarding preferences.
Design/methodology/approach
Results from both economics and social psychology are reviewed and spliced together so as to obtain a more comprehensive picture of group status‐based aspects of behavioural altruism. A more formal argument is provided in order to highlight specific effects. Applications (e.g. migration and workforce motivation) are discussed to support the argument and to illustrate its practical relevance.
Findings
The reviewed literature indeed supports the argument that individuals care about the status of the groups they belong to and are willing to trade this against economic benefits. Accordingly, certain altruistic acts can be motivated by the individual's (selfish) concern for group status. However, the effect apparently depends on the degree of the individual's identification with the respective group which opens ways to influence its strength.
Practical implications
The argument may help policy makers, chief executive officers, and people in similar positions who have to design decision environments, i.e. institutions, in a way that motivates the eventual decision makers to transfer economic benefits (e.g. donations, taxes, effort, …) to the respective institution.
Originality/value
The paper adds to the discussion about the driving forces behind altruistic behaviour. In particular, it points out the potential importance of group status concerns in connection with aspects of social identity for individual decisions to transfer economic benefits to others. The relevance of the effect in view of the design of institutions is discussed.
Details
Keywords
The paper emphasises the general relevance of social norms and social associations for cooperative behaviour in less or non‐social economic contexts, focusing in particular on…
Abstract
Purpose
The paper emphasises the general relevance of social norms and social associations for cooperative behaviour in less or non‐social economic contexts, focusing in particular on economic laboratory experiments, and to illustrate the underlying psychological driving forces.
Design/methodology/approach
The argument focuses on the interplay between social norms, their psychological enforcement mechanism (cognitive dissonance) and context effects. Drawing on findings from both (social) psychology and experimental economics, it emphasises the relevance of social norms for cooperative behaviour also in less or non‐social environments as often created in economic laboratory experiments. Moreover, the conditions for cognitive dissonance effects to occur are summarised and the corresponding behavioural effects are both highlighted and exemplified by means of various examples including the analysis of a specific data set.
Findings
The discussion strongly suggests that the influence of common cooperative social norms is difficult to “anonymise away” in laboratory experiments or other less socially focused decision environments. Moreover, it provides a possible explanation for the occurrence of a variety of behavioural patterns often found in such settings, such as initially high but decreasing willingness to cooperate in social dilemmas.
Practical implications
Emphasising the far reach of social aspects in economic decision making, the discussion may help in the design of institutions as it illustrates a widespread source of non‐economic individual incentives.
Originality/value
The argument addresses the idiosyncrasies of individual cooperative behaviour in situations where economic incentives should hinder such behaviour. Adding to earlier arguments which explain such cooperation, for example, by reference to fairness concerns or inequity aversion, the present discussion emphasises in particular the specific psychological driving forces behind such behaviour. In doing so, it establishes a clear link to the research on cognitive dissonance in psychology.