A cross-cultural study of noblesse oblige in economic decision-making.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 9010063 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1936-4776 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 10456767 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Hum Nat Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Publication: <2006-> : New York : Springer New York
      Original Publication: Hawthorne, N.Y., USA : Aldine de Gruyter, c1990-
    • Subject Terms:
      Cross-Cultural Comparison* ; Economics*; Decision Making/*ethics ; Resource Allocation/*ethics ; Social Values/*ethnology; Adolescent ; Adult ; Altruism ; Analysis of Variance ; Australia ; Cooperative Behavior ; Employment/psychology ; Europe ; Female ; Games, Experimental ; Humans ; Japan ; Male ; Middle Aged ; North America ; Power, Psychological ; Psychological Distance ; Psychological Theory ; Resource Allocation/economics ; Singapore ; Socioeconomic Factors ; Young Adult
    • Abstract:
      A cornerstone of economic theory is that rational agents are self-interested, yet a decade of research in experimental economics has shown that economic decisions are frequently driven by concerns for fairness, equity, and reciprocity. One aspect of other-regarding behavior that has garnered attention is noblesse oblige, a social norm that obligates those of higher status to be generous in their dealings with those of lower status. The results of a cross-cultural study are reported in which marked noblesse oblige was observed on a reciprocal-contract decision-making task. Participants from seven countries that vary along hierarchical and individualist/collectivist social dimensions were more tolerant of non-reciprocation when they adopted a high-ranking perspective compared with a low-ranking perspective.
    • References:
      J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009 Aug;97(2):236-55. (PMID: 19634973)
      Cognition. 2010 Dec;117(3):319-31. (PMID: 20965502)
      Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 May;7(5):225-231. (PMID: 12757825)
      J Soc Psychol. 2006 Dec;146(6):685-99. (PMID: 17172145)
      Behav Brain Sci. 2005 Dec;28(6):795-815; discussion 815-55. (PMID: 16372952)
      J Soc Psychol. 2001 Oct;141(5):667-78. (PMID: 11758044)
      J Theor Biol. 1977 Aug 7;67(3):603-5. (PMID: 904334)
      Biol Lett. 2012 Jun 23;8(3):450-2. (PMID: 22090207)
      J Theor Biol. 1990 Jun 21;144(4):517-46. (PMID: 2402153)
      Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Jul 22;278(1715):2223-32. (PMID: 21147798)
      Psychol Bull. 2002 Jan;128(1):78-88. (PMID: 11843549)
      Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Jan;60(1):16-31. (PMID: 17162505)
      Anim Behav. 1998 Jul;56(1):127-30. (PMID: 9710469)
      Evol Hum Behav. 2001 Mar;22(2):113-142. (PMID: 11282309)
      Evol Hum Behav. 2000 Jul 1;21(4):245-261. (PMID: 10899477)
      J Theor Biol. 1975 Sep;53(1):205-14. (PMID: 1195756)
      Psychol Sci. 2004 Aug;15(8):527-33. (PMID: 15270997)
      Hum Nat. 1998 Mar;9(1):1-21. (PMID: 26197355)
      Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 1995 Feb;70(1):1-65. (PMID: 7718697)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20130611 Date Completed: 20140212 Latest Revision: 20211021
    • Publication Date:
      20240628
    • Accession Number:
      10.1007/s12110-013-9169-9
    • Accession Number:
      23749462