Eye images increase generosity, but not for long: the limited effect of a false cue

By A. Sparks, Pat Barclay. 2013

126 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.

Why We Cooperate (2014, background): “Furthermore, evidence suggests that humans are so highly attuned to their reputations that even subtle images of eyespots can increase cooperation by unconsciously priming the sense of being watched (Haley & Fessler, 2005; Sparks & Barclay, 2013).”
Artificial surveillance cues do not increase generosity: two meta-analyses (2017, methodology): “…game 387 0.12 −0.23 [−0.47, 0.00] Baillon et al. (2013) Dictator game 110 0.19 0.33 [−0.05, 0.71] Nettle et al. (2013) Dictator game 118 0.19 0.03 [−0.34, 0.39] Sparks and Barclay (2013) Dictator game 188 0.16 0.02 [−0.29, 0.34] Fathi et al. (2014) Charity donation 122 0.18 0.15 [−0.20,…”
The watching eyes phenomenon: The role of a sense of being seen and public self‐awareness (2015, background): “In fact, the present study may explain why some studies have failed to find a meaningful effect of eye cue manipulations (cf. Nettle et al., 2013, and Sparks & Barclay, 2013).”
Reputation, Gossip, and Human Cooperation (2016, background): “Also, such “watching eyes effect” on cooperation might be transient (Sparks & Barclay, 2013) and may not exist in some situations, such as anonymous online situations (Raihani & Bshary, 2012) or among young children of ages 5 and 8 (Vogt, Efferson, Berger, & Fehr, 2015).”