Seminar
Abstract: This project tests the hypothesis that individuals of the general population are more prosocial than criminal offenders housed in the Greene Leaf Therapeutic Community, Xenia, Ohio. We do this by engaging prisoners and participants from the community in three economic games.In the first, the dictator game, participants split a small pot of money with anonymous partners. We find that prisoners make somewhat higher offers than the controls (P < 0.10). In the second, the ultimatum game, participants split the same pot of money with anonymous partners, who have the right to refuse the split, there by depriving both participants of any financial reward. We find that prisoners make somewhat higher offers than controls (insignificant P value) and are more likely to reject an offer that is either too high or too low (P < 0.10). In the third, the trust game, participants split a pot of money with an anonymous partner, who can return a multiple of the amount he or she receives. While prisoners' offers do not differ from those of controls, they show a more complex pattern of response. Overall they return higher sums but they are also more willing to punish partners who make small offers, a response we referto as tit-for-tat (P < 0.10). Higher offers in the dictator and ultimatum games have traditionally been seen as indicators of generosity and altruism respectively. Further, the response patterns of the prisoners in the ultimatum and trust games have not previously been observed in any group of American or European participants. These results therefore raise questions that are not easily resolved.