title: In others' shoes: do individual differences in empathy and theory of mind shape social preferences?
abstract: Abundant evidence across the behavioral and social sciences suggests that there are substantial individual differences in pro-social behavior. However, little is known about the psychological mechanisms that underlie social preferences. This paper investigates whether empathy and Theory of Mind shape individual differences in pro-social behavior as conventionally observed in neutrally framed social science experiments. Our results show that individual differences in the capacity for empathy do not shape social preferences. The results qualify the role of Theory of Mind in strategic interaction. We do not only show that fair individuals exhibit more accurate beliefs about the behavior of others but that Theory of Mind can be effectively used to pursue both self-interest and pro-social goals depending on the principle objectives of a person.
authors.affiliation: Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom; Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
authors.forename: Florian
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Artinger
authors.affiliation: BELiS, İstanbul Bilgi University, İstanbul, Turkey.
authors.forename: Filippos
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Exadaktylos
authors.affiliation: University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
authors.forename: Hannes
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Koppel
authors.affiliation: University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
authors.forename: Lauri
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Sääksvuori
mesh_terms: D004645:Empathy; D005260:Female; D005716:Game Theory; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D012919:Social Behavior; D056345:Theory of Mind; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2010 Jan 27;365(1538):303-17
references.pmid: 20026468
references.citation: J Pers. 1999 Jun;67(3):469-503
references.pmid: 10483118
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 May 17;102(20):7398-401
references.pmid: 15878990
references.citation: Top Cogn Sci. 2012 Oct;4(4):705-16
references.pmid: 22777820
references.citation: Science. 2004 Feb 20;303(5661):1157-62
references.pmid: 14976305
references.citation: Nature. 2006 Jan 26;439(7075):466-9
references.pmid: 16421576
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2002 Feb;25(1):1-20; discussion 20-71
references.pmid: 12625087
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2010 Jan-Feb;105(1-2):130-7
references.pmid: 19857876
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 2006 Mar;169(4):564-8
references.pmid: 16489438
references.citation: Science. 2006 Mar 3;311(5765):1301-3
references.pmid: 16513986
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Dec 11;109(50):20364-8
references.pmid: 23188801
references.citation: Science. 1978 Nov 3;202(4367):532-5
references.pmid: 705342
references.citation: J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002 Jun;82(6):993-1006
references.pmid: 12051585
references.citation: Am Econ Rev. ;95(2):340-5
references.pmid: 29125271
references.citation: J Autism Dev Disord. 2008 Mar;38(3):464-73
references.pmid: 17990089
references.citation: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 Mar;1156:81-96
references.pmid: 19338504
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Sep;108(3):796-803
references.pmid: 18721917