Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/1605
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBrown, WM-
dc.coverage.spatial28en
dc.date.accessioned2008-02-11T10:15:15Z-
dc.date.available2008-02-11T10:15:15Z-
dc.date.issued2003-
dc.identifier.citationBrown, W.M., Palameta, B. & Moore, C. (2003). Are there nonverbal cues to commitment? An exploratory study using the zero-acquaintance video presentation paradigm. Evolutionary Psychology: An International Journal of Evolutionary Approaches to Psychology and Behavior, 1, 42-69en
dc.identifier.issn1474-7049-
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/1605-
dc.description.abstractAltruism is difficult to explain evolutionarily if subtle cheaters exist in a population (Trivers, 1971). A pathway to the evolutionary maintenance of cooperation is nonverbal altruist-detection. One adaptive advantage of nonverbal altruist-detection is the formation of trustworthy division of labour partnerships (Frank, 1988). Three studies were designed to test a fundamental assumption behind altruistic partner preference models. In the first experiment perceivers (blind with respect to target altruism level) made assessments of video-clips depicting self-reported altruists and self-reported non-altruists. Video-clips were designed with attempts to control for attractiveness, expressiveness, role-playing ability, and verbal content. Overall perceivers rated altruists as more “helpful” than non-altruists. In a second experiment manipulating the payoffs for cooperation, perceivers (blind with respect to payoff condition and altruism level) assessed altruists who were helping others as more “concerned” and “attentive” than non-altruists. However perceivers assessed the same altruists as less “concerned” and “attentive” than non-altruists when the payoffs were for self. This finding suggests that perceivers are sensitive to nonverbal indicators of selfishness. Indeed the self-reported non-altruists were more likely than self-reported altruists to retain resources for themselves in an objective measure of cooperative tendencies (i.e. a dictator game). In a third study altruists and non-altruists’ facial expressions were analyzed. The smile emerged as a consistent cue to altruism. In addition, altruists exhibited more expressions that are under involuntary control (e.g., orbicularis oculi) compared to non-altruists. Findings Are there nonverbal cues to commitment? suggest that likelihood to cooperate is signaled nonverbally and the putative cues may be under involuntary control as predicted by Frank (1988).en
dc.format.extent447775 bytes-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherInstitute for Evolutionary Psychologyen
dc.subjectAltruist-Detectionen
dc.subjectCheater-Detectionen
dc.subjectEmotionsen
dc.subjectNonverbal Behaviouren
dc.subjectReliable Signallingen
dc.subjectSmile Asymmetriesen
dc.subjectFacial Expressionsen
dc.subjectCooperationen
dc.titleAre there nonverbal cues to commitment? An exploratory study using the zero-acquaintance video presentation paradigmen
dc.typeResearch Paperen
Appears in Collections:Psychology
Dept of Life Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
ep014269.pdf437.28 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.