An eye-like painting enhances the expectation of a good reputation.

150 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The watching eyes effect in the Dictator Game: it's not how much you give, it's being seen to give something (2013, background): “…original paper that their effect was largely driven by an increased probability of donating something under eyes compared to in control conditions, Oda et al. (2011), Tane and Takezawa (2011), and Raihani and Bshary (2012) did not report the statistics required to assess whether such effects…”
Artificial surveillance cues do not increase generosity: two meta-analyses (2017, unknown): “…and Pfattheicher (2011) Study 1 Charity donation 60 0.26 0.12 [−0.39, 0.62] Keller and Pfattheicher (2011) Study 2 Charity donation 40 0.32 −0.04 [−0.66, 0.58] Oda et al. (2011) Dictator game 61 0.26 0.59 [0.07, 1.10] Tane and Takezawa (2011) Study 1 Dictator game 40 0.32 −0.44 [−1.07, 0.19] Tane…”
Reputation, Gossip, and Human Cooperation (2016, background): “Recent evidence suggests that this effect might be driven by expected reward from a good reputation, not fear of punishment (Oda et al., 2011).”
Do watching eyes affect charitable giving? Evidence from a field experiment (2012, result): “2Also, a recent study (Oda et al. 2011) which replicates the findings of Haley and Fessler (2005), lets subjects report feelings and motives in a questionnaire after the experiment.”