There is neuroscientific evidence that people consider future versions of
themselves as other people. As a result, intertemporal choice should refer to
the interaction between multiple selves. We combine this notion of multiple
selves in delay discounting with the approach for other-regarding preferences known as Social Value
Orientation. The Social Value Orientation is a psychologically richer framework
that generalizes the economic assumption of narrow self-interest. People are
assumed to vary in their motivations toward resource allocation between them
and the others. When making such allocation decisions they may still be
individualistic, but can also be competitive, prosocial, or even altruistic. We
apply an experimental measure of impatience to a sample of 437 undergraduates,
measure their Social Value Orientation, and collect selected demographic
variables: gender, age, handedness, parenthood, religiousness, and current
emotional state. We find prosocial participants to be more patient. Those who
care for the others in the present also take better care of themselves in the
future. We also find a participant’s age and handedness to matter for his or
her Social Value Orientation.
Cite this paper
Silva, S. D. , Matsushita, R. and Carvalho, M. D. (2015). Prosocial People Take Better Care of Their Own Future Well-Being. Open Access Library Journal, 2, e2181. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1102181.
Spreng, R.N.,
Mar, R.A. and Kim, A.S.N.
(2009) The Common Neural Basis of Autobiographical Memory, Prospection, Navigation,
Theory of Mind and the Default Mode: A Quantitative Meta-Analysis. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21,
489-510. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.21029
Sutter, M.,
Kocher, M.G.,
Glatzle-Ruetzler, D.
and Trautmann, S.T. (2013) Impatience and Uncertainty: Experimental
Decisions Predict Adolescents’ Field Behavior. American Economic Review, 103, 510-531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.1.510
Murphy, R.O.,
Ackermann, K.A. and Handgraaf, M.J.J. (2011) Measuring Social Value Orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6,
771-781. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1804189
Murphy, R.O. and Ackermann, K.A. (2011) A Review of Measurement Methods for Social
Preferences. ETH Zurich Chair of Decision Theory and Behavioral Game Theory, Working
Paper.
Llaurens, V., Raymond, M.
and Faurie, C. (2009) Why Are Some People Left-Handed? An Evolutionary
Perspective. Philosophical Transactions
of the Real Society of London B, 364, 881-894. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0235
Moreira, B.,
Matsushita, R. and Da Silva, S. (2010) Risk Seeking Behavior of Preschool
Children in a Gambling Task. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 31, 794-801. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.03.005
Dohmen, T.J., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J.
and Wagner, G.G. (2005) Individual Risk Attitudes: New Evidence from
a Large, Representative, Experimentally Validated Survey. IZA Discussion Papers
No. 1730.
Liebrand, W.B.G.
(1984) The Effect of Social Motives, Communication and Group Size on Behaviour in
an N-Person Multi-Stage Mixed-Motive Game. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 239-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420140302
Van Lange, P.A.M.,
De Bruin, E.M.N.,
Otten, W. and Joireman, J.A. (1997) Development of Prosocial, Individualistic,
and Competitive Orientations: Theory and Preliminary Evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
733-746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.733
Liebrand, W.B.G.
and McClintock, C.G. (1988) The Ring Measure of Social Values: A Computerized
Procedure for Assessing Individual Differences in Information Processing and Social
Value Orientation. European Journal of Personality, 2,
217-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.2410020304