Original article:

Cheaters are looked at longer and remembered better than cooperators in social exchange situations

Evolutionary Psychology 2: 108-120 Dan Chiappe, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90840, USA, dchiappe@csulb.eduAdam Brown, St. Bonaventure University, St. Bonaventure, New York 14778, USABrian Dow, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90840, USAJennifer Koontz, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90840, USAMarisela Rodriguez, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90840, USAKelly McCulloch, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90840, USA

Abstract

What information is most salient during social exchange? Our studies assess the relative importance of cheaters and cooperators and whether their importance is affected by amount of resources involved in the exchange. In Experiment 1, participants categorized individuals as cheaters, cooperators, or neither, and rated how important they are to remember using a 7-point scale. In Experiment 2, participants categorized individuals, and then looked at their photos. This was followed by tests of face recognition, and memory for social contract status. Experiment 1 found cheaters were rated more important to remember than cooperators and more so when a greater amount of resources was involved. Experiment 2 found cheaters were looked at longer and people had better memory for their faces and were more likely to remember their social contract status. This suggests the mind evolved to remember information most pertinent in social contract situations.  

Keywords

Social exchange; social contract theory; memory bias; cheating; cooperation.  

Full article

Download PDF (free)

Evolutionary Psychology - An open access peer-reviewed journal - ISSN 1474-7049 © Ian Pitchford and Robert M. Young; individual articles © the author(s)
Close


You're in!