Decision‐making for Others under Reciprocal and Non‐reciprocal Conditions

Subjects made decisions on a gambling task where the outcome would affect their own payoff or the pay-off of another person. For the latter, decisions were made reciprocally or non-reciprocally, and for a friend or a stranger. Decisions for others were significantly more cautious when the subject believed that the other person was making reciprocal choices which would affect the subject's pay-off than where no reciprocity was involved. Degree of friendship with the other person had no effect on the level of caution chosen for him. Subjects deciding for self more closely resembled subjects in the non-reciprocal than in the reciprocal condition in terms of chosen risk levels, but overall differences were relatively small. The enhanced caution in the reciprocal relative to non-reciprocal condition was attributed to a desire to ensure at least a modest pay-off for another who might benefit the self. It is conjectured that caution in such circumstances serves the function of guilt avoidance.