Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T06:05:04.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of age-related differences in empathy on social economic decision-making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2012

Janelle N. Beadle ,
Sergio Paradiso ,
Christopher Kovach ,
Linnea Polgreen ,
Natalie L. Denburg  and
Daniel Tranel
Janelle N. Beadle*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, 200 Hawkins Drive, W-278 GH, 52242 Iowa City, IA, USA
Sergio Paradiso
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Neuroscience Program, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
Christopher Kovach
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA
Linnea Polgreen
Affiliation:
College of Pharmacy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
Natalie L. Denburg
Affiliation:
Department of Neurology and Neuroscience Program, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
Daniel Tranel
Affiliation:
Departments of Neurology and Psychology and Neuroscience Program, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Janelle N. Beadle, Department of Psychiatry, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, 200 Hawkins Drive, W-278 GH, 52242 Iowa City, IA, USA. Phone: +1 (319) 353-8514; Fax: +1 (319) 384-5532. Email: janelle-beadle@uiowa.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: The ways in which aging affects social economic decision-making is a central issue in the psychology of aging. To examine age-related differences in social economic decision-making as a function of empathy, 80 healthy volunteers participated in the Repeated Fixed Opponent Ultimatum Game (UG-R). Previous economic decision-making research has shown that in younger adults empathy is associated with prosocial behavior. The effects of empathy on older adult social economic decision-making are not well understood.

Methods: On each of 20 consecutive trials in the UG-R, one player (“Proposer”) splits $10 with another player (“Responder”) who chooses either to accept (whereby both receive the proposed division) or reject (whereby neither receives anything). Trait cognitive and emotional empathy were measured using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index.

Results: UG-R data were examined as a function of age and cognitive empathy. For “unfair” offers (i.e. offers less than $5), older Responders with high cognitive empathy showed less prosocial behavior and obtained greater payoffs than younger Responders with high cognitive empathy.

Conclusions: High levels of cognitive empathy may differentially affect economic decision-making behavior in younger and older adults. For older adults, high cognitive empathy may play a role in obtaining high financial payoffs while for younger adults it may instead be involved in facilitating social relationships.

Keywords

agingeconomic decision-makingsocial cognitionempathy
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 24 , Issue 5 , May 2012 , pp. 822 - 833
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bailey, P. E., Henry, J. D. and Von Hippel, W. (2008). Empathy and social functioning in late adulthood. Aging and Mental Health, 12, 499–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barraza, J. A. and Zak, P. J. (2009). Empathy towards strangers triggers oxytocin release and subsequent generosity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1167, 182–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batson, C. D. and Moran, T. (1999). Empathy-induced altruism in a prisoner's dilemma. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 909–924.3.0.CO;2-L>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellemare, C. and Kröger, S. (2007). On representative social capital. European Economic Review, 51, 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S. B. R. E. and Ridderinkhof, K. R. (2009). Aging and the neuroeconomics of decision making: a review. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 365–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camerer, C. F. and Hogarth, R. M. (1999). The effects of financial incentives in experiments: a review and capital-labor-production framework. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19, 7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M. and Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: a theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crockett, M. J., Clark, L., Hauser, M. D. and Robbins, T. W. (2010). Serotonin selectivity influences moral judgment and behavior through effects on harm aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 17433–17438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, M. H. (1979). Individual differences in empathy: a multidimensional approach. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 3480.Google Scholar
Davis, M. H. (1983). The effects of dispositional empathy on emotional reactions and helping: a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality, 51, 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denburg, N. L., Tranel, D. and Bechara, A. (2005). The ability to decide advantageously declines prematurely in some normal older persons. Neuropsychologia, 43, 1099–1106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eckel, C. C. and Grossman, P. J. (2001). Chivalry and solidarity in ultimatum games. Economic Inquiry, 39, 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785–791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fein, G., McGillivray, S. and Finn, P. (2007). Older adults make less advantageous decisions than younger adults: cognitive and psychological correlates. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 13, 480–489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
German, T. P. and Hehman, J. A. (2006). Representational and executive selection resources in “theory of mind:” evidence from compromised belief-desire reasoning in old age. Cognition, 101, 129–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunning-Dixon, F. M. et al. (2003). Age-related differences in brain activation during emotional face processing. Neurobiology of Aging, 24, 285–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guth, W., Schmittberger, R. and Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirman, A. and Teschl, M. (2010). Selfish or selfless? The role of empathy in economics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 303–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koenigs, M. and Tranel, D. (2007). Irrational economic decision-making after ventromedial prefrontal damage: evidence from the ultimatum game. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 951–956.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mungas, D. et al. (2010). Heterogeneity of cognitive trajectories in diverse older persons. Psychology and Aging, 25, 606–619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phillips, L. H., MacLean, R. D. J. and Allen, R. (2002). Age and the understanding of emotions: neuropsychological and sociocognitive perspectives. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 57B, 526–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillutla, M. M. and Murnighan, J. K. (1996). Unfairness, anger, and spite: emotional rejections of ultimatum offers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 208–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raz, N. et al. (2005). Regional brain changes in aging healthy adults: general trends, individual differences, and modifiers. Cerebral Cortex, 15, 1676–1689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E. and Cohen, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300, 1755–1758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J. P., Stephan, K. E., Dolan, R. J. and Frith, C. D. (2006). Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature, 439, 466–469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slembeck, T. (1999). Reputations and Fairness in Bargaining: Experimental Evidence from a Repeated Ultimatum Game with Fixed Opponents. Discussion Paper no. 9904. St. Gallen, Switzerland: Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. T. and Isaacowitz, D. M. (2011). Age-related differences in profiles of mood-change trajectories. Developmental Psychology, 47, 318–330.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, S. and Ruffman, T. (2004). Social understanding: how does it fare with advancing years? British Journal of Psychology, 95, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sutter, M. S. and Kocher, M. G. (2007). Trust and trustworthiness across different age groups. Games and Economic Behavior, 57, 364–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilmoth, J. M. and Longino, C. F. (2006). Demographic trends that will shape US policy in the twenty-first century. Research on Aging, 28, 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar