Sel - PDF document

Sel”essgiving DanielM.Bartels ,TrevorKvaran ,ShaunNichols UniversityofChicagoBoothSchoolofBusiness,5807S.WoodlawnAve.,ChicagoIL60637,UnitedStates DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofArizona,1503EUniversityBlvd,TucsonAZ85721,UnitedStates DepartmentofPhilosophy,UniversityofArizona,1145ESouthCampusDr,TucsonAZ85721,UnitedStates DecisionmakingPersonalidentityIntertemporalChoice abstractInfourstudies,weshowthatpeoplewhoanticipatemorepersonalchangeovertimegivemoretoothers.Wemeasureandmanipulateparticipantsbeliefsinthepersistenceofthede“ningpsychologicalfeaturesofaperson(e.g.,hisorherbeliefs,values,andlifegoals)andmeasuregenerosity,“ndingsupportforthehypothesisinthreestudiesusingincen-tive-compatiblecharitabledonationdecisionsandoneinvolvinghypotheticalchoicesaboutsharingwithlovedones.2013ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved. 1.Introduction Imaginedecidingwhethertogivesomefutureincome Generosityisoftenstudiedinthecontextofself-inter-estmodelsofrationalbehavior.Muchhumanbehaviorcanbeunderstoodasrationalattemptstomaximizeself- naturallyunderstoodasseekingtomaximizewhatthe agentwantsforherself„herself-regardingdesires.Aself-interestmodelalsoexplainsmanymorallyproblematicbehaviors.Self-interestedbehaviorlikelycontributestoglobalproblemslikepollutionandoverpopulation().Onalessgrandscale,self-interestalsoexplainsob-servedpatternsofallocationsineconomicgames(er,2003).Inthesecases,peopleallocatemoreofasharedresource(usuallymoney)tothemselves,presumablybe-causetheycaremoreabouttheirownintereststhantheydoabouttheinterestsoftheotherperson.Ironically,self-interestmodelshavealsobeenusedtoexplainprosocial Thereisconsiderablevarianceintheviewspeoplehaveabouttheextenttowhichtheselfchangesovertime.Inparticular,peoplehavedifferentviewsaboutthedegreeofconnectedness…thepersistenceofmemories,0010-0277/$-seefrontmatter2013ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved. Correspondingauthor.Address:Tel.:+17737028325.E-mailaddress:(D.M.Bartels). Cognition129(2013)392…403 ContentslistsavailableatSciVerseScienceDirectCognitionjournalhomepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/COGNIT convictions,values,ambitions,etc.„betweenonescurrentandfutureself.Priorresearchshowsthathowpeoplethinkaboutconnectednessbetweenthecurrentandfutureselfaffectseconomicdecisionsthatinvolvetradeoffsbetweenthecurrentandfutureself(Bartels&Rips,2010;Ersner-Hersh“eld,Garton,Ballard,Samanez-Larkin,&Knutson,).Ourstudiesexplorewhetherpeoplewillbemoregeneroustoasafunctionofhowconnectedtheyfeeltothepersontheywillbeinayear. Accordingtoaprominentlineofthoughtinphilosoph-icalethics,ifonejudgesonescurrentselftobeonlyweaklyconnectedtoonesfutureself,thisshouldmakeoneassignlessweighttotheinterestsofonesfutureself;consequentlytheinterestsofothersshouldtakeonarela-tivelyhigherweightinonesdecisionmaking.TheideaherehasrootsintheBuddhistideathatthereisnosoul-likeself(Harvey2000),butthemostin”uentialcontempo-rarydevelopmentoftheseideascomesfromDerekPar“t.Par“tmaintainsthatbecausethereisnosoul-likeself,thecontinuityofselfisamatterofdegreeofconnected-ness(1973,p.140).Onescurrentconnectionstothepres-entselfareakindoflimitcase„theconnectionsaremaximal(1973,p.147).Butastimepasses,thoseconnec-tionsbecomeweaker,andasonecontemplatesadistantfutureself,oneiscontemplatingapersonwithweakcon-nectednesstothecurrentself. Par“tmaintainsthatcomingtobelievethattheselfchangesacrosstimeledhimtobecomemoreconcernedaboutthewelfareofotherpeople:Thereisstilladifferencebetweenmylifeandthelivesofotherpeople.Butthediffer-enceisless.Otherpeoplearecloser.Iamlessconcernedabouttherestofmyownlifeandmoreconcernedaboutthelivesofothers(1984).Further,ifwhatreallymatterstousarepsychologicalcharacteristics,thenwemight“ndthatgenerositytootherswillbeafunctionnotjustofhowconnectedonefeelstoonesfutureselfbutalsooftheextenttowhichonejudgesthepotentialpsychologicallyoverlappingwithonespresentself. Ofcourse,itisfarfromclearthatpeoplewillreacttobeliefsaboutthemutabilityofselfinthewayssuggestedbyphilosophers.Inthe“rstplace,whatphilosophersclaimisthatthenormativelycorrectreactiontocomingtobe-lieveinthemutabilityofselfistohavegreaterconcernforothers.Whenweturntopredictingbehavior,itisobvi-ouslyasubstantiveassumptionthatpeoplewillbehaveinnormativelyappropriatewaysininterpersonalinterac-tions.Afterall,thereisconsiderableevidenceforself-serv-ingbiasesininterpersonaljudgmentanddecisionmakingGreenberg,1983;Loewenstein,Issacharoff,Camerer,&Babcock,1993;Messick&Sentis,1979;Ross&Sicoly,).Moreover,evenifIthinkthattheconnectionbe-tweenmycurrentandfutureselfisattenuated,Imightthinkthatmyconnectiontomyfutureselfstilldwarfs myconnectiontoanyotherperson.Thinkingaboutothers mightmakeespeciallysalientthemyriadtweenothersandmyself,andthismightcounteractanyinclinationtogreatergenerosity.Thus,itsessentialtoinvestigatewhetherpeoplereallydoreactininterpersonalcontextsaspredictedbynormativemodelsoftheroleofconnectednessinself-interest.Furthermore,giventheso-cialsigni“canceofcharitablegiving,itisimportanttoex-ploretheextenttowhichbeliefsaboutconnectednessimpactbehaviorinthatdomain.Althoughthereisanextensiveliteratureoncharitablegiving(e.g.,Andreoni,2001;Bekkers&Wiepking,2007;Oppenheimer&Olivola,),therehasbeennoworkonhowbeliefsaboutthepersistenceoftheselfmightaffectcharitablebehavior. 2.Presentstudies Intheresearchpresentedhere,weinvestigatewhetherpeoplewillbemoregeneroustoothersasafunctionofhowconnectedtheyfeeltothepersontheywillbeinayear.Inourresearch,connectednessisde“nedasthepro-portionofthede“ningpsychologicalfeaturesofthecur-rentselfthatpersistintheselfthatwillexistinthefuture.Thus,anindividualwhoanticipatesstabilityinthesefeaturesisjudgingthatshewillbemoreconnectedtohisfutureselfthananindividualwhoexpectstheseimportantpropertiesoftheselftovaryovertime. Wehypothesizedthatpeoplewhothoughttheywouldchangeoverthenextyearwouldcarelessaboutthatfutureselfswelfareandberelativelymoreconcernedabouttheinterestsofothers.Theideaisthatwhenpeoplefeeldis-connectedfromthefutureself,thisreducestheirconcernaboutthefutureself,allowingforthewelfareofotherstotakeamoreprominentroleintheirdecisionmaking.Fur-thermore,ifpeoplealsocareaboutthepsychologicalchar-acteristicstheysharewithothers,thenthisreductioninconcernforthefutureselfmightfacilitategreatergeneros-itytootherswhosharecharacteristicswiththepresentself.Acrossfourstudies,weshowthatmeasured(Studies1and4)andmanipulated(Studies2and3)beliefsaboutconnectednesstothefutureselfareassociatedwithin-creasedgenerosity. 3.Study1 InStudies1…3,weusedrealmonetarystakestotesthowviewsabouttheconnectednessofselfpredictbehav-ioronanincentive-compatibledictator-game-stylechari-tablegivingtask(Eckel&Grossman,1996;Konow,2009;Starmer&Sugden,1991).Inthesestudies,participantsloggedontoawebsiteandcompletedaquestionnaireassessingtheirbeliefsaboutconnectednessandweretoldthattheyhadbeenenteredintoalotteryinwhichtheyhada25%chanceofwinning$6.Participantswereaskedtodecidehowmuchoftheirpotentialwinningstheywouldliketodonatetoacharity(SavetheChildren).Inonecondition,thecharityallocationisslatedtohappeninaweek;intheothercondition,theallocationisslatedtohappeninayear.Weexpectedthatparticipantswhofeelhighlyconnectedwiththeselfinayearwouldchoose Thisproposalapplieswhenwehaveindependentmotivationtoenhancethewelfareofothers,whichweassumeobtainsinmanysituations.Forexample,ifpeopleweregivenachoicebetweenhaving$5destroyedorgiventoacharitythatworkstohelpstarvingchildren,weexpectthatpeoplewouldwantthemoneytogotothecharity.Inotherspecialcases,wherethemoneywouldinsteadgotoacharitythatisrepugnanttotheparticipant,shewouldprefertohavethemoneydestroyedratherthandirectedtothecharity. D.M.Bartelsetal./Cognition129(2013)392…403 393 tokeepmoreofthemoneyforthemselves,butthatthosewhofeeldisconnectedwouldgivemoretothecharitywhentheallocationhappensinayear. Instudy1,participants“rstmadetheirallocationdeci-sionandthenratedthedegreeofconnectednesstotheper-sontheywouldbeinayear.Wepredictedthatwhenparticipantswereaskedtodonatemoneyinaweek,theirdonationdecisionswouldnotcorrelatewithbeliefsaboutconnectednesstothefutureself(ahighdegreeofpersonalchangewouldplausiblytakemorethanaweek).However,wepredictedthatwhenparticipantswereaskedtomakedecisionsaboutaneventoccurringinoneyear,theywouldchoosetodonatelessastheirbeliefinthedegreeofcon-nectednesstotheirfutureselfincreased. 3.1.Participantsandprocedures Onehundredtwenty-eightadultparticipantswererecruitedfromanonlinepanel(AmazonsMechanicalTurk)tocompleteashortsurveyinreturnforanominalcashpaymentplusapossiblebonuspayment.Threeparticipantsfailedanattentioncheck,leavinga“nalsam-pleof125participants(63%female,meanage=36.71,=13.34)forallanalyses. Study1wasdesignedasacorrelationalstudytoexam-inewhetherarelationshipexistsbetweengenerosityandbeliefsabouttheconnectednesstothefutureself.Partici-pantsreadapassagedescribingthemissionstatementforacharity(SavetheChildren)andwereinformedthatbyparticipating,theyhadbeenenteredintoalotterytoreceivea$6bonuspayment,eitherinaweekorinayear(s=63and62).Participantswereinstructedthatonequarterofsurveyswouldbeselectedtoreceivebonusmoney,andthattheycoulddonatesomeorallofthemoneytothecharityand/orkeepallofitforthemselvesiftheywereselected.Theythenchoseanallocationfromasetof13,rangingfromsending$6tothecharity($0totheself)tothereverse,in50-centincrements.Next,weaskedparticipantstothinkabouttheimportantcharacteristicsthatmakeyouthepersonyouarenowandtorateconnectednesstotheper-sontheywouldbeinayearontwoscales(seeAppendixA0…100scale =74.0,=21.9;linescale =78.9,=16.5).We-scoredresponsesonthesetwohighlycorrelatedscales=.75,.001)andusedtheaverageofthese-scoresasourindexofconnectedness.Finally,participantsansweredanumberofdemographicquestions,includingage,race,gender,maritalstatus,religiousaf“liation,andincomelevel.Includingdemographicvariablesinouranalysesascovariatesdoesnotchangethepatternofresultsweobserveinanyofthestudies. 3.2.Resultsanddiscussion Toassesstherelationshipbetweengenerosityandfu-ture-selfconnectedness,webeganbyconductingcorrela-tionalanalysesseparatelyfortheyearandweekconditions.Asexpected,givingwassigni“cantlycorrelatedwithratedconnectednessintheyearcondition.05)butnotintheweekcondition(=.04,=.78).Wealsoconductedaregressioninwhichadummyvari-ableforthetimingcondition(yearversusweek)andthe combinedconnectednessscoreswereusedtopredict donationstothecharity.Bothofthecontinuousvariables(connectednessanddonations)were-scoredbeforebeingenteredintotheregressiontofacilitateinterpretationofthecoef“cients.Thisanalysisrevealedamaineffectoftim-ing„participantsgavemoreintheyearcondition(=4.36[outof$6],=1.16)thanintheweekcondition(=3.91,=1.07;=0.21,(122)=2.37,.05)„noeffectofmea-suredconnectedness((122)==.15),andamarginalinteraction((122)==.07),whichcon“rmsthedifferentialcorrelationsbe-tweenconnectednessandgivingforallocationsmadeinaweekversusayear.(SeeFig.1AppendixCforasupple-mentaryanalysis.) Study1suggeststhataspeopleregardthemselvesaslessconnectedtothefutureself,theygivemoregenerouslywhenmakingdecisionsaboutthefuture. However,apos-siblelimitationofthisstudyisthatitscorrelationaldesignallowsforreversecausationorforathirdvariabletodeter-minetherelationshipbetweenconnectednessandgiving.Thenextstudyaddressestheseissuesbyusinganexperi-mentaldesign. 4.Study2 InStudy2,wemanipulatedparticipantsbeliefsaboutconnectedness.Weinducedhighorlowconnectednesswiththefutureselfbyhavingparticipantsreadapassagedescribingsomeresearchsuggestingthatpeoplespersonalcharacteristicschangeorremainstableovertime( Fig.1.Amountallocatedtocharity(±one)byconnectedness(HighversusLow)andtimingoftheallocation(happeninginaWeekversusaYear)inStudy1.Thesedataareestimatedmarginalmeans(Highisoneabovethemeaninmeasuredconnectedness,Lowisonebelowthe Asnotedintheintroduction,thepredictionthatpeopleshouldbehavemoregenerouslytowardotherstestedhereappliesincaseswherethereissomestandingmotivationtobene“tothers.Althoughtheallocationtasksweuseinthecurrentstudiesareallzerosum„sothatgivingmoretoothersnecessarilymeansallocatinglesstothefutureself„ourframeworkdoesnotentailanassumptionaboutboundedgenerosityorakindofconser-vationofgiving.Thatis,inallofourcaseswetestcompetinginterests(i.e.,inbene“tingothersversusthefutureself)fora“xedpoolofresources,butinspecialcaseswhereinterestsarenotcompetingorwhereresourcesareunbounded,otherpatternsarepossible.D.M.Bartelsetal./Cognition129(2013)392…403 &Urminsky,2011).Afterthemanipulation,participantsreadthattheymightreceiveabonusineitheraweekorayear,andtheycouldallocateanyportionofthisbonustoacharity(SavetheChildren).Wepredictedthatwhenparticipantswereaskedtomakedonationdecisionsintherelativelynearfuturetherewouldbenodifferencebe-tweenparticipantsinthehighandlowconnectednesscon-ditions.Bycontrast,wepredictedthatwhenparticipantswereaskedtomakedecisionsaboutthemoredistantfu-ture,participantsinthelow-connectednessconditionwoulddonaterelativelymorethanthoseinthehigh-con-nectednesscondition. 4.1.Participantsandprocedures Onehundred“fty-nineadultparticipantswerere-cruitedfromanonlinepanel(AmazonsMechanicalTurk)tocompleteashortsurveyinreturnforanominalcashpaymentplusapossiblebonuspayment.Fourparticipantsfailedanattentioncheck,leavinga“nalsampleof155(59%female,meanage=34.58,=12.60)usedforall InStudy2,weemployeda2(futureselfconnectedness:highorlow)2(allocationtime:weekoryear)between-subjectdesignwithdonationamountastheprimarydependentvariableofinterest.Wecrossedwhethertheallocation(betweenonesfutureselfandacharity)wasslatedtohappeninaweekorayearwithmanipulationsofconnectednessdrawnfromBartelsandUrminsky.Theconnectednessmanipulationhadtwoparts:First,participantsinthehigh(low)connectednesscondi-tionswereaskedtoestimatetheeasewithwhichtheycouldgenerateeithertwo(inthehighconnectednesscon-=77)orten(inthelowconnectednesscondition,=78)reasonswhytheirownidentitywouldremainverystableoverthenextyear.Weexpectedthatparticipantsaskedfortworeasonswould“ndthetaskeasy,andthere-forehavenoreasontodoubtthestabilityoftheiridentity,whereasthoseaskedfortenreasonswouldexperiencedif-“cultygeneratingthereasons,andwouldthereforeinter-pretthisexperienceasevidenceoflowerconnectednesstofutureselves.Next,participantsinthehigh(low)connectednessconditionreadapassagedescribingsomeresearchwhichsuggestedthatpeoplespersonalcharacter-isticsremainstable(change)overtime.Amanipulationcheckveri“edthatourmanipulationssigni“cantlyaffectedbeliefsaboutconnectedness,=6.09,.001.ParticipantsthenratedconnectednessasparticipantsdidinStudy1beforemakingthesamedecisionabouthowtoallocatebonusmoneytheymightreceiveandansweringdemo-graphicquestions. 4.2.Resultsanddiscussion Toassesswhethermanipulatedfuture-selfconnected-nessin”uencedgivingbehavior,weconducteda2(time:yearversusweek)2(connectedness:highversuslow)analysisofvariance.Thisanalysisrevealedmaineffectsoftiming(weekversusyear)andconnectedness((1,151)=10.56and6.10,s.05)andmostimportantly,thepredictedinteraction((1,151)=5.52,.05).Aspre- dicted,therewasnodifferencebetweenallocationswhen theallocationwasslatedforaweek(1),butwhentheallocationwastotakeplaceinayear,thoseinthelow-con-nectednessconditiongavesigni“cantlymoretothecharity(77)=3.74,.001;seeFig.2formeans.). Study2showsthatpeoplebehavemorecharitablywhentheythinkthattheselfchangesconsiderablyacrosstime.AlthoughtheexperimentalprocedureofStudy2al-lowsforcausalinference,themanipulationofconnected-nessmayhavehadunknowneffectsonothervariablesthatcouldin”uencecharitablegiving.Thenextstudywasruntoassessthecontributionofseveralfactorstothepatternsofgivingthatweobserve. 5.Study3 ToaddresssomepotentiallimitationsandalternativeexplanationsforStudy2s“ndings,Study3replicatesthemethodsofStudy2butalsomeasuresseveraladditionalvariables.Hereagain,ourpredictionisthatpeoplewhoareinducedtofeellessconnectedtothefutureselfwillplacelesservalueonthewelfareofthatfutureself,andthisdifferencewillleadtogreatergenerositytowardothersinayear,ascomparedtothosewhoareinducedtofeelmoreconnectedtotheirfutureself.Tomoredirectlytestthishypothesis,Study3includesameasureoftemporaldis-counting„ameasureofhowmuchfutureoutcomesfortheselfarevaluedrelativetocurrentoutcomes.Previousstudieshaveshownthatmanipulatingconnectednesschangesthelevelofpatiencethatpeopleexpressontime-moneytradeoffslikechoosingtoreceive$100todayversus$120inayear(Bartels&Urminsky,2011).Peoplemadetofeellessconnectedtothefutureselfdiscountthevalueofdelayedoutcomes(tobeenjoyedbythatdisconnectedfutureself)morethanpeoplewhoaremadetofeelmoreconnectedtothefutureself.Inparticular,peoplewhofeelhighlyconnectedareclosertoindifferentbetweentheinterestsofthecurrentandfutureself,whereaspeoplemadetofeeldisconnectedshowintertem-poralsel“shnessstronglypreferringtheinterestsofthecurrentoverthefutureself.Inlightofthis,wepredictedthatlessconnectedpeoplewouldshowhigherratesoftem- Fig.2.Averageamountallocatedtocharity(±one)byConnected-ness(HighversusLow)andtimingoftheallocation(happeninginaWeekversusaYear)inStudy2. D.M.Bartelsetal./Cognition129(2013)392…403 poral(i.e.,intrapersonal)discountingandthusbemorewillingtogivemoneytoothersinthefuture.Inotherwords,generositytoothersinayearshouldbeinverselyre-latedtothepatiencethatpeopleexpressonthesemeasures. However,itisalsopossiblethatourmanipulationofcon-nectednessmightaffectgivingthroughotherfactors.First,manipulatingconnectednesscouldchangepeoplesbeliefsabouttheirinvestmentability,andthismightaffecttheirbeliefsabouttheireffectivenessofinvestingmoney(ratherthandonatingit)forahighreturn,yieldingmoretodonateinthefuture.Second,itispossiblethatourlowconnected-nessparticipantswereledtobelieve,viathemanipulationofconnectedness,thatsomeoftheirtastesandpreferenceswillbedifferentinthefuture.Whenpeopledonotprojecttheircurrenttastesontoalaterself,theymightchoosetoconsumesomeoutcomessooner,ratherthanlater,becausethedelayedbene“ts(e.g.,keepingmoremoneyforoneself)mightnot“tthefutureselfstasteaswellasit“tsthecurrentselfstastes.Finally,manipulatingconnectednessmayaffectpeoplesreputationalconcerns,whichmightbeafactorinresearchthathasshownthathigherratingsofconnectednesshavebeenassociatedwithfewerunethicalbehaviorsdirectedtowardothers(Hersh“eld,Cohen,&Thompson,2012 So,inStudy3,wemeasurepeoplesbeliefsaboutinvestmentability,anticipatedpreferencechange,andperceivedimportanceofreputationalconcern. Inadditiontomeasuringthein”uenceoftheseaddi-tionalfactors,Study3alsoaccountsforthevarianceinourdependentvariablethatisattributabletoseveralcovariatesthathavebeenlinkedtocharitablegivinginpriorwork.Previousresearchhasshownthatcharitablegivingispredictedbymeasuresof(i)interpersonalrespon-siveness(Verhaert&VandenPoel,2011)and(ii)altruismHarbaugh,Mayr,&Burghart,2007).Also,peoplesdeci-sionsabouthowtospendtheirfuturetimeandmoneyhavebeenshowntovaryalongwithpeoplesanticipationofadditionaldisposabletimeandmoneyand/ortheunder-appreciationoffuturedemandsontheirtimeandmoney(Pronin,Olivola,&Kennedy,2008;Zauberman&Lynch,2005).So,Study3includesmeasuresofeachofthesevariablesinadditiontotheotherstoprovideafulleraccountofthein”uencesoftheseandourfocalvariable„regardforthefutureself„ongiving. Wecollecteddataintwowavestoalleviatepotentialconcernsaboutbiasedresponding.Inthe“rstwave,wecollectedcovariatemeasuresthathavebeenrelatedtoaltruismandcharitablegivinginpreviousresearch.Inthesecondwave,atleasttwoweekslater,weusedanexperimentalproceduresimilartoStudy2andalsomeasuretemporal(i.e.,intrapersonal)discounting. 5.1.Participantsandprocedures WaveOne.Study3collecteddataintwowaves.Onehundredeighty-sixColumbiaUniversityundergraduatesparticipatedinthe“rstwave,inwhichwecollectedinfor-mationoninterpersonalresponsiveness,altruism,age,andgender.Eachparticipantwasbroughtintoalaboratoryand completedthesurveyathisorherownpace.Theywere testedindividuallybutinasmall-groupsetting(typicallyonetofourparticipantspersession).Usually,otherpartic-ipantswerecompletingthestudyattheirownpaceinthesameroom.Eachreceived$4forparticipating.Toavoidanypollutingeffectsofmeasuringaltruisticandempa-thetictendenciesonourmeasureofcharitablegiving,weintroducedadelayofmorethantwoweeksbetweenpar-ticipationinthe“rstandsecondwavesofdatacollection. WaveTwo.Twotothreeweeksafterparticipatinginthe“rstwave,participantswereinvitedoveremailtopartici-pateinasecond,web-basedfollow-upstudy.Onehundredfortyofthemparticipated(69%female,meanage=22.39,=4.53),andeachreceived$4.Theparticipantswhocompletedbothwavesdonotdifferonanyofthevariablesmeasuredduringthe“rstwave(alls1),nordoesanylinearcombinationofthe“rstwavevariablespredictpar-ticipationinthesecondwave,suggestingthatselectiveattritioneffectsarenotamajorconcernforthisstudy. Asnoted,inthe“rstwave,inadditiontocollectingageandgender,wemeasuredinterpersonalresponsivenessandaltruism,usingtheinterpersonalreactivityindex(IRI,Davis,1983),whichconsistsoffoursubscales:empathicconcern,fantasysituations,personaldistress,andperspec-tive-taking.WealsomeasuredaltruismusingthePersonalAltuismLevel(PAL)scale(Tankersley,Stowe,&Huettel,),whichconsistsoftwosubscales:altruismexpressedtofriendsandaltruismexpressedtostrangers.Allsixsub-scalesoftheseconstructswereenteredascovariatesinananalysiswereportbelow. ThesecondwavewasidenticaltothemethodsofStudy2exceptforonechangeandtheadditionsnotedbelow.Study3usedthesame2(futureselfconnectedness:highorlow)2(allocationtime:weekoryear)between-sub-jectdesignwithdonationamountastheprimarydepen-dentvariableofinterestasusedinStudy2,withonechangeandseveraladditionsnotedbelow.ThechangewasthatStudy3manipulatedconnectednessusingonlytheinformation-basedmethod,omittingthe”uency-basedmethodfromStudy2(s=70inthehighandlowconnect-ednessconditions).Aftertheconnectednessmanipulation,participantsratedconnectednessandmadetheirdecisionabouthowtoallocatebonusmoneythattheymightre-ceiveinaweek(=69)versusayear(=71). Inthenextpartofthetask,wepresentedparticipantswithfourdiscountingtasksinvolvingchoicesbetweenreceivingsmalleramountsofmoneytomorrowversuslar-geramountsofmoneyinayear.Forexample,inoneofthesefourtasks,participantswereaskedwhethertheywouldrather$260tomorrowversuseachofeightvalues($260,$312,$364,$416,$468,$520,$572,and$624)inayear.(SeeAppendixB.)Ourmeasureofdiscountingwasthenumberoflateralternativesthateachparticipantchoseacrossthefourtasks.So,aparticipantwithasmaller(larger)valueisapersonwhoisless(more)willingtowait,consistentwiththeideathatshestrongly(lessstrongly)favorstheinterestsofhercurrentselfoverherfutureself. Finally,wecollectedmeasuresrelatingtothealterna-tiveexplanationsnotedearlier:investmentability,antici-patedpreferencechange,andreputationalconcern.Wealsoincludedcovariatesthathavebeenlinkedtodecisions Wethankareviewerforraisingthesethreepossibilities. D.M.Bartelsetal./Cognition129(2013)392…403 aboutfuturetimeandmoneyuse:anticipatedchangesindisposabletimeandmoney,andanticipatedfuturede-mandsontimeandmoney.(SeeAppendixB 5.2.Resultsanddiscussion EffectsofconnectednessandtimingoncharitablegivingToassesswhethermanipulatedfuture-selfconnectednessin”uencedgivingbehavior,weconducteda2(time:yearversusweek)2(connectedness:highversuslow)analy-sisofvariance.Thisanalysisrevealedthepredictedinter-action((1,136)=5.76,.05),butnomaineffectsofeithertimingorconnectedness(s1).Aspredicted,therewasnodifferencebetweenallocationswhentheallocationwasslatedforaweek((67)==.31),butwhentheallocationwastotakeplaceinayear,thoseinthelow-con-nectednessconditiongavesigni“cantlymoretothecharity(69)=2.36,.05;seeFig.3formeans).Again,peoplebehavedmorecharitablywhentheythoughtthattheselfchangesconsiderablyacrosstime,replicatingtheresultsofStudies1and2. Effectsofdiscountingonesfuturewelfareoncharitable.Ourcontentionisthatmakingpeoplefeeldiscon-nectedfromthefutureselfreducestheirconcernaboutthefutureself,allowingforthewelfareofotherstotakeamoreprominentroleintheirdecisionmaking.Inthe“rstthreestudies,wehaveshownthatreducingconnectednessincreasesthelevelofgivinginayear.Here,weexaminewhetherthisreductioninconnectednessproducestherel-ativedevaluationofthefutureselfswelfarethatwepro-poseandwhetherthisdevaluationresultsinincreasedgivingtocharity. First,toassesstherelationshipbetweenconnectednessandthevaluationofthecurrentversusthefutureself,wecomparedthepatienceweobservedinourdiscountingtasks(i.e.,thenumberofdelayedalternativeschosen,wherechoosingmoreindicateslessdevaluationofthefutureself)acrossconnectednessconditions.Peoplemadetofeeldisconnectedfromthefutureselfdiscountedthefu-tureselfsoutcomesmore(i.e.,chosefewerdelayedre-=18.03,=5.29)thanparticipantswhowere madetofeelmoreconnectedtothefutureself(=21.63,=6.43,(138)=.001,replicatingBartels&Urminsky,2011 Second,toassesstherelationshipbetweengenerosityandpeoplesvaluationoftheirowncurrentversusfutureselfswelfare(asmeasuredbyourtemporaldiscountingmeasures),webeganbyconductingcorrelationalanalysesseparatelyfortheyearandweekconditions.Wepredictedthatthemorepeoplevaluedtheircurrentselfsinterestsovertheirfutureselfsinterests(i.e.,thefewerdelayedalternativestheychoseonourmeasures),themoretheywouldsharewithSavetheChildreninayear.Indeed,giv-ingwassigni“cantlynegativelycorrelatedwithdiscount-ingintheyearcondition(.05)butnotintheweekcondition(=.04,=.78).WealsoconductedanAN-COVAinwhichtiming(weekoryear),discounting,andtheirinteractionwereusedtopredictdonationstothecharity.Thisanalysisrevealedamaineffectofdiscount-ing„participantsgavemorewhentheydevaluedthefu-tureself((1,136)=4.28,.05),noeffectoftiming1),andamarginalinteraction((1,136)=3.03,=.08).Aspeoplearemorelikelytodisregardthewelfareoftheirselvesinayear,theygivemoregenerouslywhenmakingdecisionsaboutthefuture. Assessingthestrengthofadditionalin”uencesoncharitableFirst,weexaminedthedegreetowhichperceivedinvestmentability,anticipatedpreferencechange,andrep-utationalconcernaredriversoftheeffectsobservedinthesestudies.Perceivedinvestmentabilityandreputationalcon-cernwereneithersigni“cantlycorrelatedwithlevelsofcharitablegiving(.14and.02,s=.11and.80),norchangedbytheconnectednessmanipulationinStudy3s(138)=1.05and0.85,s=.29and.39).Anticipatedpref-erencechangewasmanipulatedalongwithconnectedness,suchthatpeopleinthehighconnectednessconditionsanticipatedlesspreferencechangethanparticipantsinthelowconnectednessconditions(s=2.81versus3.54,s=1.38versus1.39;(138)=3.12,.01,consistentBartels&Urminsky,2011),butanticipatedpreferencechangedidnotcorrelatewithgiving(=.03,=.70). Second,werananaugmentedversionofourmainanal-ysis,regressingtheamountgiventocharityonadummyvariableforthetimingoftheallocation(yearversusweek),connectedness(highversuslow),theirinteraction,andtencontinuouscovariates(thefoursubscalesoftheinterper-sonalreactivityindex,thetwosubscalesofthealtruismmeasure,twoitemsmeasuringanticipatedchangesindis-posabletimeandmoney,andtwomeasuringanticipatedchangesintimeandmoneydemands).Allofthecontinu-ousvariableswere-scoredbeforebeingenteredintotheregressiontofacilitateinterpretationofthecoef“cients.Thisanalysis“ndsonlythepredictedinteractionbetweenconnectednessandthetimingoftheallocation(=.22,(126)=2.61,.05;seeTable1).AscanbeseeninthelastcolumnofTable2,whichshowsthecorrelationbetweenthemeasuredvariablesinthisanalysis,fourofthevariablesarecorrelatedwithgivingwhenconsideredseparately(empathicconcern,fantasysituations,altruismtofriends,andaltruismtostrangers),andseveralofthemeasuredpredictorvariablescorrelatewitheachother.However,ascanbeseeninthethirdcolumnofTable1 Fig.3.Averageamountallocatedtocharity(±one)byconnectedness(HighversusLow)andtimingoftheallocation(happeninginaWeekversusaYear)inStudy3. D.M.Bartelsetal./Cognition129(2013)392…403 onlytheassociationbetweenempathicconcernandgiving(i.e.,thatthosewhofeelmoreconcerngivemore)sustainswhenconsideringallofthesevariablestogether.Moreover,thefourthcolumnofTable1suggeststhattheseresultsarenotsubstantiallyaffectedbymulticollinearity. Takentogether,theresultsofStudy3suggestthatcon-nectednessaffectsthewaythatpeoplemakedecisionsaboutsharingwithothersinthefuturebychangingtherelativevaluationofonesfuturewelfare:Caringlessaboutthefutureselfcantranslatetosharingwithothersinthefuture.Moreover,Study3testedtheroleofregardforthefutureselfingenerositytowardothers,alongsideseveralotherpotentiallyexplanatoryvariablesandfoundthestrongestsupportfortheinteractionofvariablesstipulatedbyourtheoreticalframework. Thusfar,wehavetestedtheideathatperceivedreduc- tionsinconnectednesswiththefutureselfovertimewouldleadtocaringlessaboutthefutureselfswelfareandrelativelymoreabouttheinterestsofothers.Studies1through3holdthetargetofgenerosityconstantandmeasureormanipulatetheperceivedpsychologicalover-lapwiththefutureselfata“xedpointintime(i.e.,inayear).Afurtherquestioniswhetheroverlapofpsycholog-icalcharacteristicswithacandidaterecipientisalsoimportantforgenerosity. 6.Study4 Asweveseeninstudies1…3,believingthatthefutureselfisdisconnectedfromthecurrentselfincreasesgener-osity.Butthereisafurtherquestionaboutconnectednessandgenerosity:doesconnectednessbetweenindividualsmatter?InStudy4,wetestwhethergivingtoothersdependsnotonlyonperceivedconnectednesstothefutureself,butalsoontheextenttowhichonejudgesthepoten-ofonesgenerosityaspsychologicallyoverlap-pingwithonespresentself. Previousworkindicatesthatgenerositytoothersde-pends,inpart,ontheperceivedsocialdistancetothem.JonesandRachlin(2006)askedparticipantstothinkofthe100peopleclosesttothemselves,andthenaskedpar-ticipantswhethertheywouldprefertokeepalumpsumofmoney(varyingfrom$75to$155)forthemselvesortokeep$75andshare$75withselectedtargetpersonsfromthelist.Generositydecreasedhyperbolicallyacrosssocialspace,drawingastrikingparallelwithtemporaldiscount-ing.Separately,BartelsandRips(2010)showedthatchangesinratedconnectednesstothefutureselfdecrease Table1Study3regressiontable.0.051.160.061.09timing0.22Empathicconcern0.181.72Fantasysituations0.071.21Personaldistress0.001.30Perspectivetaking0.021.46Altruismtofriends0.101.55Altruismtostrangers0.031.53Futureextramoney0.041.18Futureextratime0.001.11Futuremoneydemands0.091.031.05Futuretimedemands0.081.20.10..05..01. Table2CorrelationamongmeasuredvariablesinStudy3regression.tofriendsAltruismtoFuturetime0.010.4300.10.030.05.25…0.110.090.230.070.120.090.180.080.24………0.220.010.130.13Altruismto…………0.520.050.080.23Altruismto……………0.010.120.24Futureextra………………0.1300.140.03Futureextra…………………0……………………0.050.09Futuretime………………………0.13.10..05..01.D.M.Bartelsetal./Cognition129(2013)392…403 overtime,andthatthesechangesinconnectednesspredictpeopleschangingdiscountrates(oftenreferredtoashyperbolicdiscountingordecliningimpatience).Theseresults,takeninconjunctionwithstudies1…3,suggestthatthedecisiontobehavegenerouslymayinvolvebothfu-ture-selfconnectednessandsocialconnectednesstotherecipientofonesgenerosity.Study4wasconductedtobetterunderstandhowthedynamicrelationshipbetweensocialdistanceandfuture-selfconnectednessisinvolvedingenerousbehavior. Study4teststhepredictionthatwhenpeoplefeelsub-stantiallymoreconnectedtoothers(inthepresent)thantotheirfutureself,theywillintendtobemoregenerous(i.e.,sharemoreresources)thanwhentheyfeelsubstan-tiallymoreconnectedtotheirfutureselves.Toaddressthisquestion,participantswereaskedtoprovidealistofthe10peopleclosesttoyouintheworld,rangingfromyourdear-estfriendatposition1toapersonatposition10whocouldbeamereacquaintance.Theywereinstructednottolistpartnersorchildren.Then,intwotasks,whichweresepa-ratedbyadelayofmorethantwoweeks,they(i)ratedhowconnectedtheyfeltwiththeirfutureselves(i.e.,thepersontheywouldbeinone,two,“ve,ten,20,30,40,and50years)andwitheachpersonontheirlistinthepresentand(ii)wereaskedhowtheywoulddistributemoneybetweenoneoftheirfutureselvesandoneofthepeoplefromtheirlist(i.e.,moneyissplitbetweenoneofyourandyouinthe).Wepredictedthatasconnectednesstoanotherpersonexceededconnectednesstothefutureself,generositywouldincrease. 6.1.Participantsandprocedures WaveOne.Study4collecteddataintwophases.Acom-munitysampleof199(32.7%female,meanage=32.03,=13.83)adultswererecruitedthrough”yersandanemaillistservmaintainedbytheUniversityofChicago.Par-ticipantswerebroughtintoanoff-campuslaboratoryindowntownChicagoandcompletedthesurveyathisorherownpace.Theyweretestedindividuallybutinasmall-groupsetting(typicallyonetofourparticipantspersession).Usually,otherparticipantswerecompletingthestudyattheirownpaceinthesameroom.Eachreceived$3forparticipating. Inthis“rstwave,participantswereaskedtolistthetenpeopleclosesttothem.Next,100participantswereran-domlyassignedtoeitherratetheirconnectednesstothesetenothersandtotheirfutureselvesatseveralfuturepointsintime(intwoblocksofratings,oneusingthe0…100scaleandoneusingthelinescaleusedinStudy3).Theother99participantswereaskedtomake21decisions,inrandomorder,abouthowtheywoulddistributeasumof$155be-tweenoneoftheirfutureselvesandpeoplefromtheirlistTable3fortheitems).Finally,participantsansweredseveraldemographicquestions. WaveTwo.Alloftheparticipantsfromwaveonere-ceivedaninvitationoveremail,twotothreeweekslater,toparticipateinasecond,web-basedfollow-upstudyinexchangefor$3.Ofourinitial199participants,85returnedtocompletephase2.Ofthis85,elevenparticipantsfailedanattentioncheck,and“vemorewereremovedforfailure tofollowinstructions ,leavinga“nalsampleof68partici- pantsusedforanalyses.Inthissecondwave,thosewhohadcompletedtheratings(allocation)taskinthe“rstwavenowcompletedtheallocation(rating)task.(SeeTable3 6.2.Resultsanddiscussion Table3Meanconnectednessdifferencescoresfrompilotstudy.ContrastMeanconnectednessdifference(otherminusself)Other#1versusSelfin30years20.4OtherOther#1versusSelfin20years15.1OtherOther#2versusSelfin40years14.3OtherOther#2versusSelfin30years10.9OtherOther#3versusSelfin40years10.5OtherOther#3versusSelfin30years7.1OtherOther#2versusSelfin20years5.6OtherOther#5versusSelfin50years4.5OtherOther#6versusSelfin50years1.8OtherOther#6versusSelfin40years3.0SelfOther#5versusSelfin30years3.8SelfOther#9versusSelfin50years4.7SelfOther#7versusSelfin40years5.7SelfOther#6versusSelfin30years6.4SelfOther#3versusSelfin5years7.0SelfOther#5versusSelfin20years9.1SelfOther#2versusSelfin2years9.2SelfOther#10versusSelfin50years11.2SelfOther#2versusSelfin1year11.7SelfOther#6versusSelfin20years11.7SelfOther#3versusSelfin2years13.0Self Fiveparticipantsmisunderstoodtheinstructiontolistthenamesofcloseothers(e.g.,theyleft“eldsblankorlistedsocialroles,likebrotherorfriend).Weexcludedparticipantswholeft“eldsblankandthosewhomadeduplicateentries„forexample,listingbrotheratpositionstwoandeight„becauselaterinthestudy,whenparticipantsareaskedtorateconnectednessortomakeallocationdecisions,itwouldbeimpossibleforthemknowwhethertheratingorallocationconcernedbrotherfrompositiontwooreight.Twoindependentcoderswerepresentedwithparticipantsentriesfortheten“eldsandaskedtojudgeCouldthisbealistoftenuniqueidenti“ers(namesorsocialroles)fortenpeople,withnorepeats?foralltheparticipantswhocompletedbothwavesofStudy4.ThecodersansweredYes,No,orMaybeandagreedin99.2%ofcases.Insixcases,thecodersagreedthattheentrieswerenotuniqueidenti“ers.Oneofthesesixhadalreadybeenexcludedforfailingtheattentioncheck.D.M.Bartelsetal./Cognition129(2013)392…403 Wefoundthatfeelingmoreconnectedtoanotherper-sonthantoonesfutureselfsigni“cantlypredictsgiving.Foreachofthe21decisions,wecalculatedaconnectednessdifferencescoreforeachdecisionbysubtractingthefu-ture-selffromtheotherconnectednessrating.Positivescoresindicatemoreconnectednesstootherthantothefutureselfandviceversa.AscanbeseeninFig.5,higherdifferencescorescorrelatedwithincreasedgenerositywhencollapsedacrossparticipantsandcomparedusingtheaverageresponsegivenforeachofthe21decisions=.71,.001).(SeeFig.4 Wealsotestedwhetherpeopleweremoregenerousontrialsinwhichweexpectedthemtobemoreconnectedtotheotherindividualthantotheself(onthebasisofourpretest,seeTable3forpredictions).Wealsowantedtoac-countforanydifferencesobservedacrossparticipantswhoratedconnectedness“rstversusthosewhomadealloca-tiondecisions“rst,inwaveoneofdatacollection.Foreachparticipant,wecalculatedtheaverageamountshegaveforotherfavoringchoicetrialsandcomparedittotheaver-ageamountshegaveforfuture-self-favoringtrials.A2mixed-modelANOVA,withtaskorder(ratings-“rstversusallocations-“rst)asabetween-subjectsfavorandchoicetype(other-favoringversusfuture-self-favoring)asarepeatedmeasurefoundamaineffectoftrialtype(1,66)=40.24,.001)whichwascomparativelylargeineffectsize( 2p =0.38),nomaineffectoftaskorder1),andanunpredictedinteraction((1,66)=4.45,.05)whichwassmallerineffectsize( 2p =0.06)thantheeffectofchoicetype.(SeeFig.5formeans.)Plannedcontrastsveri“edthatparticipantsgavesigni“cantlymoreonother-favoringchoicetrialsthanonthefuture-selffavoringtrialsinboththeratings-“rstandallocations-“rstconditions(paired-(30)=3.55,.001fortheratings-“rstcondition,andpaired-(36)=5.12,.001fortheallocations-“rstcondition).Itappearsthattaskordermod-eratedthesizeoftheeffectbutnotitsdirection. Next,wecalculatedthecorrelationbetweendifferencescoresandtheamountgivenforeachdecisionseparatelyfortheratings-“rstandallocations-“rstconditions. medianofthewithin-subjectscorrelationsinbothcondi-tionswassigni“cantlygreaterthanzero(Median=0.10,.01;meanFishertransformed=0.10,one-sample(28)=2.68,.05fortheratings-“rstcondi-tion;Median=0.34,.001;meanFishertrans-=0.36,one-sample(32)=5.59,.001fortheallocations-“rstcondition).Wereportadditionalsupple-mentaryanalysesandareplicationstudyinAppendixC WedidnotanticipatetheinteractionwithtaskorderobservedintheANOVAreportedabove,butintryingtointerpretthisinteraction,wenotedthatbothmeanspre-sentedinFig.5fortheratings-“rstconditionliebetweenthemeansfortheallocations-“rstcondition.Toassesswhetherthedifferencesobservedacrossconditionswasduetoparticipantsusingthescaleofallocationorconnect-ednessratingtasksdifferently,werank-transformedeach variableforeachparticipantandcomputedwithin-sub- jectsrankcorrelationcoef“cients(Spearmans).Theob-sweresigni“cantlygreaterthanzeroineachconditionanddidnotdiffersigni“cantlyacrossconditionss=.14and.25,s=.29and.32fortheratings-“rstandallocations-“rstconditions,(60)=1.41,=.17).Recallthatratings-“rstparticipantsgavetheirratingsinthelab-oratoryanddidtheallocationtaskonlinelater,andviceversafortheallocation-“rstparticipants.Thisanalysisofrankcorrelationsshowsthat,afteraccountingforscalingdifferencesacrosstheconditions,perhapsduetodiffer-encesinthetestingcontext,thedifferenceinthesizeoftheeffectobservedhereisattenuated. Study4“ndsthattheperceivedconnectednesswiththetargetsofgenerositymattersforhowmuchgenerositypeopleexpress.Speci“cally,whenapersonperceivesthatacloseothersharesmoreoverlapwithherinthepresentthanoneofherfutureselves,shesharesmorewiththat Fig.4.Averageamountgiven(±one)foreachofthe21decisionsinStudy4asafunctionoftheaveragedifferencescoreobserved(ratedconnectednesstootherminusratedconnectednesstothefutureself). Fig.5.Averageamountgiventoothers(±one)forother-favoringtrialsandfutureself-favoringtrialsasafunctionoftaskorderinStudy4. Theseanalyses,andonlytheseanalyses,omitsixofthe68participantsforwhomwithin-subjectscorrelationswereunde“nedbecauseofzerovarianceintheamountallocatedacrossthe21decisions(=5)orzerovarianceinconnectednessratingsacrosstargets(=1).D.M.Bartelsetal./Cognition129(2013)392…403 closeother.AllofStudy4sresultsshowthatfeelingmoreconnectedtoanotherthantoonesfutureselfisassociatedwithgreatergiving.Thisstudyshowsthatpeoplecareaboutconnectednessinabroaderwaythanonemighthaveexpected.Inmakingdecisionsaboutothers,peoplegaugenotjusttheextenttowhichtheywillchange,butalsotheextenttowhichtherecipientispsychologicallysimilartotheircurrentself. 7.Generaldiscussion Ourresearchaimedtoexplorehowbeliefsabouttheselfwererelatedtoself-interestedbehavior.Acrossfourstudies,wehaveshownthatdecreasedconnectednesstothefutureselfisbothcorrelatedwith(Study1)andcausallyrelatedto(Studies2and3)futurecharitablegiv-ingandisalsorelatedtogenerositytootherindividuals(Study4). Previousworkhasshownthatwhenpeoplejudgethemselvestobelessconnectedtotheirfutureself,theydisplaymoreimpatienceontemporaldiscountingtasksBartels&Urminsky,2011).Crudely,onemightexplainthisphenomenonasafunctionofapersonthinkingthatthefutureselfwillbelessme.InsofarasIammakingachoicebasedentirelyonself-interest,thefactthatthefu-tureselfwillbelessmeprovidesreasontocarelessabouttheinterestsofthatfutureperson.Wewantedtoinvesti-gatewhetherdecisionsaboutotherpeoplewouldalsobeaffectedbybeliefsaboutconnectedness.Ifthebeliefinlow-connectednessleadspeopletocarelessabouttheinterestsoftheirfutureselves,doesitmakethemcarerel-ativelymoreabouttheinterestsofothers?Accordingtoprominentethicaltraditions,comingtobelievethattheselfchangessigni“cantlyleadtorelativelygreaterconcernforothers.Wefoundthatpeoplesdecisionsdo,infact,largelycomportwiththestipulationsofthesemod-els.Wemeasured(Study1)andmanipulated(Studies2and3)beliefsaboutconnectednessandfoundthatbelievingthatthefutureselfisdisconnectedfromthepresentselfleadstoincreasedgenerosity.Ourexplanationforthisef-fectisthatwhenthefutureselfisregardedasdiscon-nected,peopleplacelessweightontheinterestsofthefutureself.Study3supportedthisexplanationbyrevealingthepredictedrelationshipbetweendiscountingand Our“rstthreestudiesshowthatwhenpeoplecometobelievethattheselfchangessigni“cantly,theyaremoregenerouswithothers.Study4exploredwhethergeneros-ityisaffectedbyhowconnectedonefeelswiththepoten-tialrecipient.Onceagain,wefoundthatconnectednesshasapronouncedeffect.Theresultsofstudy4revealthatratherthanbeingmotivatedpurelybyfuture-selfconnect-ednessortheperceivedpsychologicaloverlapwithanother,oneswillingnesstobehavegenerouslyisdeter-minedbytherelativelevelsofbothofthesevariablesatthemomentofmakingadecision.Thus,generositytooth-ersisbestunderstoodbytakingaccountofbothonesfu-tureselfconnectednessandonesconnectiontotheseothers.Theresultspointtopracticalimplicationsinsofarasabetterunderstandingofbeliefsaboutthefuture-self mayhavebene“tsforthenon-pro“tindustry(Shang,&Shabbir,2010).Careful“eldstudiessensitivetopotentialdonorsbeliefsaboutthefutureselfwillbeimportantinfurtherexploringtheapplicationofthesere-sultstorealworldfundraisingandcharitablegivingcon-texts.Butthefactthatpeoplesgenerosityisaffectedbyhowtheythinkabouttheselfindicatesanewpotentialavenueforincreasinggenerosity,bothtolargescalechar-itableorganizationsandtotheindividualsweengagewithonaday-to-daybasis. Itisarecurringthemeinphilosophythatdeterminingthenatureoftheselfhasimplicationsforawiderangeofissues.Ifonespastselfisverydifferentfromonespres-entself,thenonedeserveslesspunishmentforoffensesofthatpastself(Par“t,1973,143;Tierney,Howard,Kumar,Kvaran,&Nichols,inpress).Ifonesselfchangesradicallyacrosstime,thenoneshouldbelessconcernedabouttheprospectofdeathinthedistantfuture(Par“t,1984section95).Inthispaper,weveexploredanotherimplica-tionofthinkingthattheselfchangesagreatdeal.Insofarastheselfchanges,philosophersmaintainthatweshouldcarelessaboutthewelfareofourfutureselvesandrelativelymoreaboutthewelfareofothers.Ourstudiesindicatethatordinarypeoplesbehavioractuallyconformstowhatmighthaveseemedaratherabstractphilosophi-calview.Peoplesdecisionsaboutgivingtoothersaresigni“cantlyaffectedbytheirbeliefsaboutthenatureoftheself. Acknowledgements WethankSteveAtlas,BenConverse,HalHersh“eld,JoshKnobe,YeLi,DannyOppenheimer,NickReinholtz,DanShaffer,SteveSloman,OlegUrminsky,andJenZamzowforhelpfulcomments. AppendixA.Connectednessmeasures 1)Pleasethinkabouttheimportantcharacteristicsthatmakeyouthepersonyouarenow„yourpersonality,temperament,majorlikesanddislikes,beliefs,val-ues,ambitions,lifegoals,andideals„andpleaseratethedegreeofconnectednessbetweenthepersonyouexpecttobeinayearcomparedtothepersonyouarenowwhere0meansIwillbecompletelydifferentinthefutureand100meansIwillbeexactlythesameinthefuture. Myratingis:__________ 2)Pleasethinkagainabouttheseimportantcharacter-isticsandindicateyouropinionaboutthedegreeofconnectednessheldbetweenthepersonyouarenowandthepersonyouwillbeinayearbyclickingonthecontinuumbelow,wherenooverlapmeanscompletelydisconnectedandcompleteoverlapmeanscompletelyconnected. D.M.Bartelsetal./Cognition129(2013)392…403 401 AppendixB.AdditionalmeasuresusedinStudy3 Discountingmeasures Imaginethatyouhavetheoptionofreceivingsomemoneytomorrow,oroneyearfromnow.Wewillshowyouaseriesofsuchoptions,oneinwhichyouwouldreceivemoneytomorrowandtheotherinwhichyouwouldreceivemoneyinayear.Ineachrowbelow,choosewhichONEofthetwooptionsyouwouldprefertoreceive.Imag-inethatbothpaymentsareguaranteedtooccurwhen Block1: $260tomorrow„„„$260inoneyear $260tomorrow„„„$312inoneyear$260tomorrow„„„$364inoneyear$260tomorrow„„„$416inoneyear$260tomorrow„„„$468inoneyear$260tomorrow„„„$520inoneyear$260tomorrow„„„$572inoneyear$260tomorrow„„„$624inoneyearBlock2used$40tomorrowversus($158,$141,$124,$107,$90,$73,$57,$40)inoneyearBlock3used$260tomorrowversus($429,$405,$381,$357,$332,$308,$284,$260)inoneyearBlock4used$40tomorrowversus($40,$56,$71,$87,$103,$119,$134,$150)inoneyear Measuresrelatingtoalternativeexplanations Perceivedinvestmentability.IexpectthatIcouldinvestthebonuspaymentnowandearnahighreturnonthemoney.(1=stronglydisagree;7=stronglyagree)Anticipatedpreferencechange.Thinkaboutthepersonyouexpecttobeinayear.Howsimilarordifferentfromyourcurrentpreferences„yourcurrentlikesanddis-likes„doyouthinkyourfuturepreferenceswillbeoneyearfromnow?(1=thesameasnow;7=com-pletelydifferent)Reputationalconcern.Howimportanttoyouareotherpeoplesopinionsofyou?(1=notatallimportant;7=extremelyimportant) Measuresofcovariateslinkedtocharitablegivingand/ordecisionsaboutfuturetimeandmoneyuse InterpersonalreactivityindexDavis,1983AltruismscaleTankersleyetal.,2007Anticipatedextramoney.Comparedtonow,howmuchmoreorlessspendingmoneydoyouexpecttohave inayear?(1=muchmorespendingmoneynow; 7=muchmorespendingmoneyinayear)Anticipatedextratime.Comparedtonow,howmuchmoreorlessfreetimedoyouexpecttohaveinayear?(1=muchmorefreetimenow;7=muchmorefreetimeinayear)Anticipatedmoneydemands.Comparedtonow,doyouexpectmoreorfewerdemandsandconstraintsonyour“nancialresourcesinayear?(1=manymoredemandandconstraintsonmymoneynow;7=manymoredemandsandconstraintsonmymoneyinayear)Anticipatedtimedemands.Comparedtonow,doyouexpectmoreorfewerdemandsandconstraintsonyourtimeinayear?(1=manymoredemandandconstraintsonmytimenow;7=manymoredemandsandcon-straintsonmytimeinayear) AppendixC.Supplementaryanalysesandresults Study1 WealsoconductedaGeneralLinearModelanalysisusingranktransformeddataforconnectednessscoresanddonations.Ranktransformeddatawereusedasanon-parametricalternativebecauseofnegativelyskewedcon-nectednessratings.PreviousresearchhasshownranktransformationtobearobustandreliablealternativewhenviolationsofthetraditionalGLMareviolated(Conover&Inman,1982).Inthismodeladummyvariableforthetim-ingcondition(weekoryear)andranktransformedcon-nectednessscoreswereusedtopredictranktransformedofferstothecharity.ConsistentwithourANCOVAanalysis,ourrank-transformedanalysisrevealedamaineffectoftiming„participantsgavemoreinayear(medianrank=76.5)thaninaweek(medianrank=54.5,122)=5.12,.05),noeffectofconnectedness,andasig-ni“cantinteractionbetweenthetwo((1,122)=5.60,.05). Study4 InStudy4,asecondaryanalysiswasconductedusingamultilevelmodelingapproachinwhichconnectednessdif-ferencescoresandconditionorder(indicatingwhetherparticipantscompletedtheratingsordecisiontask“rst),aswellastheinteractionbetweenthesevariables,werein-cludedas“xedeffectsandparticipantwasincludedasarandomeffectwithavaryingintercept.Thisalternativeap-proachreplicatedtheeffectsreportedinthemaintext,“ndingthepredictedsigni“cantrelationshipbetweenconnectednessandgiving(differencescoreparameterestimate=.17,=.04,.001),nosigni“canteffectoftaskorder,andtheunexpectedinteractionbetweentaskorderandconnectedness(interactionparam- D.M.Bartelsetal./Cognition129(2013)392…403 eterestimate=.18,=.06,=2.80,.02)thatwedis-cussinthemaintext. PriortoStudy4,werananadditionalstudywhichhadthesamedesignasidefromtwodifferences.First,thisstudyusedanAmazonMechanicalTurksampleof60adults,twoofwhomfailedanattentioncheck.Second,theratingstaskandallocationtaskoccurredinthesameexperimentalsession.AsinStudy4,wefoundastrongcor-relationbetweengivingtoothersandthedifferencescore=.83,.001,seeFig.6).Themedianwithin-subjectscorrelationbetweenthedifferencescoresandtheamountgivenforeachdecisionwas0.38,whichissigni“cantlygreaterthanzero(.001;meanFishertrans-=.44,one-sample(55)=6.90,.001).Amultilevelmodelingapproachcon“rmedthesigni“cantef-fectofconnectednessongiving(parameterestimate=.62,=.04,=14.49,.001). References Andreoni,J.(1990).Impurealtruismanddonationstopublicgoods:Atheoryofwarm-glowgiving.TheEconomicJournal,100,464…477 Andreoni,J.(2001).TheEconomicsofPhilanthropy.InN.J.Smelser&P.B.Baltes(Eds.),Internationalencyclopediaofthesocialandbehavioral(pp.11369…11376).London:Elsevier Bartels,D.,&Rips,L.(2010).Psychologicalconnectednessandintertemporalchoice.JournalofExperimentalPsychology:General,,49…69 Bartels,D.M.,&Urminsky,O.(2011).Onintertemporalsel“shness:Howtheperceivedinstabilityofidentityunderliesimpatientconsumption.JournalofConsumerResearch,38,182…198 Bekkers,R.,&Wiepking,P.,Generosityandphilanthropy:Aliterature review.SSRN:�28.10.07. Camerer,C.(2003).Behavioralgametheory:Experimentsinstrategic.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress Collins,S.(1982).Sel”esspersons.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversity Conover,W.,&Inman,R.(1982).AnalysisofcovarianceusingrankBiometrics,38,717…724 Davis,M.H.(1983).Measuringindividualdifferencesinempathy:Evidenceforamultidimensionalapproach.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,44(1),113…126 Eckel,C.,&Grossman,P.(1996).Altruisminanonymousdictatorgames.GamesandEconomicBehavior,16,181…191 Ersner-Hersh“eld,H.,Garton,M.,Ballard,K.,Samanez-Larkin,G.,&Knutson,B.(2009).Dontstopthinkingabouttomorrow:Individualdifferencesinfutureself-continuityaccountforsaving.JudgmentandDecisionMaking,4,280…286 Goodman,C.(2002).Resentmentandreality:BuddhismonmoralAmericanPhilosophicalQuarterly,39,359…372 Greenberg,J.(1983).Overcomingegocentricbiasinperceivedfairnessthroughself-awareness.SocialPsychologyQuarterly,46,152…156 Harbaugh,W.,Mayr,U.,&Burghart,D.(2007).Neuralresponsestotaxationandvoluntarygivingrevealmotivesforcharitabledonations.Science,316,1622…1625 Hardin,G.(1968).Thetragedyofthecommons.Science,162,1243…1248 Harvey,B.(2000).AnintroductiontoBuddhistethics.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress Hersh“eld,H.E.,Cohen,T.,&Thompson,L.(2012).Shorthorizonsandshadysituations:Whenlackofcontinuitytoourfutureselvesleadstounethicalbehavior.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,117,298…310 Jones,B.,&Rachlin,H.(2006).Socialdiscounting.PsychologicalScience,17 Konow,J.(2009).Mixedfeelings:Theoriesofandevidenceongiving.JournalofPublicEconomics,94,279…297 Loewenstein,G.,Issacharoff,S.,Camerer,C.,&Babcock,L.(1993).Self-servingassessmentsoffairnessandpretrialbargaining.TheJournalofLegalStudies,22,135…159 Messick,D.,&Sentis,K.(1979).Fairnessandpreference.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,15,418…434 Oppenheimer,D.M.,&Olivola,C.Y.(Eds.).(2010).Thescienceofgiving:Experimentalapproachestothestudyofcharity.NewYork:Taylor& Par“t,D.(1984).Reasonsandpersons.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress Par“t,D.(1973).Laterselvesandmoralprinciples.InA.Monte“ore(Ed.),Philosophyandpersonalrelations(pp.137…169).London:Routledge Pronin,E.,Olivola,C.Y.,&Kennedy,K.A.(2008).Doinguntofutureselvesasyouwoulddountoothers:PsychologicaldistanceanddecisionPersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,34,224…236 Ross,M.,&Sicoly,F.(1979).EgocentricbiasesinavailabilityandJournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,37,322…336 Sargeant,A.,Shang,J.,&Shabbir,H.(2010).Thesocialmarketingofgiving.PublicManagementReview,12,635…662 Starmer,C.,&Sugden,R.(1991).Doestherandom-lotteryincentivesystemelicittruepreferences?Anexperimentalinvestigation.AmericanEconomicReview,81,971…978 Tankersley,D.,Stowe,C.J.,&Huettel,S.A.(2007).Altruismisassociatedwithanincreasedneuralresponsetoagency.NatureNeuroscience,10 Tierney,H.,Howard,C.,Kumar,V.,Kvaran,T.&Nichols,S.(forthcoming).HowManyofUsAreThere?InJ.Sytsma(ed.)AdvancesinExperimentalPhilosophyofMind.ContinuumPress. Verhaert,G.A.,&VandenPoel,D.(2011).Empathyasaddedvalueinpredictingdonationbehavior.JournalofBusinessResearch,64 Zauberman,G.,&Lynch,J.G.(2005).Resourceslackandpropensitytodiscountdelayedinvestmentsoftimeversusmoney.JournalofExperimentalPsychology:General,134,23…37 Fig.6.Averageamountgiven(±one)foreachofthe21decisionsinthereplicationofStudy4asafunctionoftheaveragedifferencescoreobserved(ratedconnectednesstootherminusratedconnectednesstothefutureself). D.M.Bartelsetal./Cognition129(2013)392…403