Watching-eye effect

Last updated
A sticker in German warning that the reader is being "video monitored". Even just the presence of an eye symbol on a sticker can be enough to change a person's behavior. Hinweisaufkleber videoueberwacht.jpg
A sticker in German warning that the reader is being "video monitored". Even just the presence of an eye symbol on a sticker can be enough to change a person's behavior.

The watching-eye effect says that people behave more altruistically and exhibit less antisocial behavior in the presence of images that depict eyes, because these images insinuate that they are being watched. Eyes are strong signals of perception for humans. They signify that our actions are being seen and paid attention to even through mere depictions of eyes. [1]

Contents

It has been demonstrated that these effects are so pronounced that even depictions of eyes are enough to trigger them. This means that people need not actually be watched, but that a simple photograph of eyes is enough to elicit feelings that individuals are being watched which can impact their behavior to be more pro-social and less antisocial. [2] Empirical psychological research has continually shown that the visible presence of images depicting eyes nudges people towards slightly, but measurably more honest and more pro-social behavior. [3]

The concept is part of the psychology of surveillance and has implications for the areas of crime reduction and prevention without increasing actual surveillance, just by psychological measures alone. By simply inserting signs depicting eyes and leading others to believe they are being watched, crime can be reduced, as it leads to behavior that is more socially acceptable. [4] [ additional citation(s) needed ]

Similar effects

The effect differs from the psychic staring effect in that the latter describes the feeling of being watched, whereas individuals who succumb to the watching-eye effect usually affect our behaviour through the subconscious level. [2]

Evidence of effects on behavior

Effects on pro-social behavior

There is evidence that images of eyes being present cause people to behave pro-socially. Pro-social behavior is acting in a way or with the intent that benefits others. [5] There are two forms of motivation that support this. One being negative motivation that makes people want to avoid behavior that is wrong and violates the norm. They want to keep up a positive social image, or be seen improving their image rather than worsening it.[ citation needed ] The second being positive motivation to get a reward or benefits in the future. They believed that under watching eyes that if they behaved in a positive manner that benefited others, they were likely to get paid back for it in the future. [3]

Pro-social experiments

Certain studies have shown that under the influence of eyes people will behave as truthfully honest. Under controlled groups without images of eyes present people were more likely to behave anti-socially and lie for the benefit of others. [3] People lean toward honesty rather than acting generously to keep a good image in these situations in order to avoid violating norms. In these situations honesty is often chosen since it is seen as the most pro-social behavior. [3]

There are more examples of studies that show that pro-social behavior is more likely under watchful behavior. People were more likely to share things such as money in games that had to do with economics when presented with images with eyes. [3] People were also shown to be more likely to pick up trash at bus stops and pick up after themselves in a cafeteria, [3] they were less likely to commit bicycle theft, [4] and people were much more likely to give the full amount of money for their coffee on certain days that images of eyes were put up nearby. [3]

In an experiment on littering funded by the School of Psychology at Newcastle University it was found that places that already had trash on the ground tending to have an increase in littering, showing that people tend to behave in ways that seem socially acceptable. Likewise, it was discovered that images of eyes that insinuated watching caused a reduce in littering however, the reduction of littering was mainly only present when there were also larger groups of people around. The findings of this study added to the idea that watching eyes reduce anti-social behavior and increase people to behave more pro-socially. [6]

Donation experiment

In situations where the image of eyes were present people were also more likely to be generous with donations and give more. One study testing this was done at the University of Virginia by Caroline Kelsey. [7] The study was done at a children's museum where there was a donation box at the front desk. Data was collected from this setting for 28 weeks, testing more than 34,100 people who visited in the span of this time. Each week the sign over the box that usually read "Donations would be appreciated" changed to primarily images of eyes or other inanimate objects such as chairs or noses with some wording with it. Throughout each week the number of people who visited the museum was recording along with the total amount of donations made. By the end of the study it was found that patrons donated more under the presence of eyes on the signs rather than other inanimate objects. [8]

More on studies

Other studies in relation to the watching-eye-effect show that people are more cooperative and aware of themselves when their identity is exposed as opposed to when they are acting anonymously. They act more respectfully and appropriately because their reputation is at risk when they are being watched by others or feel that they are being watched.[ citation needed ] [9] Even in some studies that insisted to their participants that their actions were anonymous they were still more generous because they felt identified by the eyes. [1]

Some studies argue that it may not be the effect of these eyes that gives people incentive to be more generous, but the number of people that are around them that make them feel peer pressure to conform to more pro-social behavior. [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Altruism</span> Principle or practice of concern for the welfare of others

Altruism is the principle and practice of concern for the well-being and/or happiness of other humans or animals above oneself. While objects of altruistic concern vary, it is an important moral value in many cultures and religions. It may be considered a synonym of selflessness, the opposite of selfishness.

In psychology, an attribution bias or attributional errors is a cognitive bias that refers to the systematic errors made when people evaluate or try to find reasons for their own and others' behaviors. It refers to the systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, often leading to perceptual distortions, inaccurate assessments, or illogical interpretations of events and behaviors.

Antisocial behaviours are actions which are considered to violate the rights of or otherwise harm others by committing crime or nuisance, such as stealing and physical attack or noncriminal behaviours such as lying and manipulation. It is considered to be disruptive to others in society. This can be carried out in various ways, which includes, but is not limited to, intentional aggression, as well as covert and overt hostility. Anti-social behaviour also develops through social interaction within the family and community. It continuously affects a child's temperament, cognitive ability and their involvement with negative peers, dramatically affecting children's cooperative problem-solving skills. Many people also label behaviour which is deemed contrary to prevailing norms for social conduct as anti-social behaviour. However, researchers have stated that it is a difficult term to define, particularly in the United Kingdom where many acts fall into its category. The term is especially used in British English.

Diffusion of responsibility is a sociopsychological phenomenon whereby a person is less likely to take responsibility for action or inaction when other bystanders or witnesses are present. Considered a form of attribution, the individual assumes that others either are responsible for taking action or have already done so.

Reciprocity is a crucial aspect of how people interact and live in society but researchers who study these interactions have often overlooked its importance. Reciprocity, as a fundamental principle in social psychology, revolves around the concept that individuals tend to respond to the actions of others in a manner that mirrors the positive or negative nature of those actions. It involves a mutual exchange of behaviors and reactions, where individuals reciprocate the same type of behavior they have received from others. People's choices in how they behave are mostly based on what they can gain from others in return, while feelings of trust, liking, and togetherness are strongly influenced by the idea of giving and receiving equally

The dictator game is a popular experimental instrument in social psychology and economics, a derivative of the ultimatum game. The term "game" is a misnomer because it captures a decision by a single player: to send money to another or not. Thus, the dictator has the most power and holds the preferred position in this “game.” Although the “dictator” has the most power and presents a take it or leave it offer, the game has mixed results based on different behavioral attributes. The results – where most "dictators" choose to send money – evidence the role of fairness and norms in economic behavior, and undermine the assumption of narrow self-interest when given the opportunity to maximise one's own profits.

Deindividuation is a concept in social psychology that is generally thought of as the loss of self-awareness in groups, although this is a matter of contention. For the social psychologist, the level of analysis is the individual in the context of a social situation. As such, social psychologists emphasize the role of internal psychological processes. Other social scientists, such as sociologists, are more concerned with broad social, economic, political, and historical factors that influence events in a given society.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social behavior</span> Behavior among two or more organisms within the same species

Social behavior is behavior among two or more organisms within the same species, and encompasses any behavior in which one member affects the other. This is due to an interaction among those members. Social behavior can be seen as similar to an exchange of goods, with the expectation that when you give, you will receive the same. This behavior can be affected by both the qualities of the individual and the environmental (situational) factors. Therefore, social behavior arises as a result of an interaction between the two—the organism and its environment. This means that, in regards to humans, social behavior can be determined by both the individual characteristics of the person, and the situation they are in.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social rejection</span> Deliberate exclusion of an individual from social relationship or social interaction

Social rejection occurs when an individual is deliberately excluded from a social relationship or social interaction. The topic includes interpersonal rejection, romantic rejection, and familial estrangement. A person can be rejected or shunned by individuals or an entire group of people. Furthermore, rejection can be either active by bullying, teasing, or ridiculing, or passive by ignoring a person, or giving the "silent treatment". The experience of being rejected is subjective for the recipient, and it can be perceived when it is not actually present. The word "ostracism" is also commonly used to denote a process of social exclusion.

Motivation crowding theory is the theory from psychology and microeconomics suggesting that providing extrinsic incentives for certain kinds of behavior—such as promising monetary rewards for accomplishing some task—can sometimes undermine intrinsic motivation for performing that behavior. The result of lowered motivation, in contrast with the predictions of neoclassical economics, can be an overall decrease in the total performance.

The online disinhibition effect refers to the lack of restraint one feels when communicating online in comparison to communicating in-person. People tend to feel safer saying things online which they would not say in real life because they have the ability to remain completely anonymous and invisible when on particular websites, and as a result, free from potential consequences. Apart from anonymity, other factors such as asynchronous communication, empathy deficit, or individual personality and cultural factors also contribute to online disinhibition. The manifestations of such an effect could be in both positive and negative directions. Thus online disinhibition could be classified as either benign disinhibition or toxic disinhibition.

Behavior management, similar to behavior modification, is a less-intensive form of behavior therapy. Unlike behavior modification, which focuses on changing behavior, behavior management focuses on maintaining positive habits and behaviors and reducing negative ones. Behavior management skills are especially useful for teachers and educators, healthcare workers, and those working in supported living communities. This form of management aims to help professionals oversee and guide behavior management in individuals and groups toward fulfilling, productive, and socially acceptable behaviors. Behavior management can be accomplished through modeling, rewards, or punishment.

Prosocial behavior, or intent to benefit others, is a social behavior that "benefit[s] other people or society as a whole", "such as helping, sharing, donating, co-operating, and volunteering". Obeying the rules and conforming to socially accepted behaviors are also regarded as prosocial behaviors. These actions may be motivated by empathy and by concern about the welfare and rights of others, as well as for egoistic or practical concerns, such as one's social status or reputation, hope for direct or indirect reciprocity, or adherence to one's perceived system of fairness. It may also be motivated by altruism, though the existence of pure altruism is somewhat disputed, and some have argued that this falls into philosophical rather than psychological realm of debate. Evidence suggests that pro sociality is central to the well-being of social groups across a range of scales, including schools. Prosocial behavior in the classroom can have a significant impact on a student's motivation for learning and contributions to the classroom and larger community. In the workplace, prosocial behaviour can have a significant impact on team psychological safety, as well as positive indirect effects on employee's helping behaviors and task performance. Empathy is a strong motive in eliciting prosocial behavior, and has deep evolutionary roots.

The negative-state relief model states that human beings have an innate drive to reduce negative moods. They can be reduced by engaging in any mood-elevating behaviour, including helping behaviour, as it is paired with positive value such as smiles and thank you. Thus negative mood increases helpfulness because helping others can reduce one's own bad feelings.

In psychology, manipulation is defined as subterfuge designed to influence or control another, usually in a manner which facilitates one's personal aims. The methods used distort or orient the interlocutor's perception of reality, in particular through seduction, suggestion, persuasion and non-voluntary or consensual submission. Definitions for the term vary in which behavior is specifically included, influenced by both culture and whether referring to the general population or used in clinical contexts. Manipulation is generally considered a dishonest form of social influence as it is used at the expense of others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biosocial criminology</span> Psychosocial examination of crime

Biosocial criminology is an interdisciplinary field that aims to explain crime and antisocial behavior by exploring biocultural factors. While contemporary criminology has been dominated by sociological theories, biosocial criminology also recognizes the potential contributions of fields such as behavioral genetics, neuropsychology, and evolutionary psychology.

Moral development focuses on the emergence, change, and understanding of morality from infancy through adulthood. The theory states that morality develops across a lifespan in a variety of ways and is influenced by an individual's experiences and behavior when faced with moral issues through different periods of physical and cognitive development. Morality concerns an individual's reforming sense of what is right and wrong; it is for this reason that young children have different moral judgment and character than that of a grown adult. Morality in itself is often a synonym for "rightness" or "goodness." It also refers to a specific code of conduct that is derived from one's culture, religion, or personal philosophy that guides one's actions, behaviors, and thoughts.

Since their inception in the 1970s, video games have often been criticized by some for violent content. Politicians, parents, and other activists have claimed that violence in video games can be tied to violent behavior, particularly in children, and have sought ways to regulate the sale of video games. Studies have shown no connection between video games and violent behavior. The American Psychological Association states that while there is a well-established link between violent video games and aggressive behaviors, empirical research finds there is little to no evidence connecting violent behavior to video games.

Vicarious embarrassment is the feeling of embarrassment from observing the embarrassing actions of another person. Unlike general embarrassment, vicarious embarrassment is not the feelings of embarrassment for yourself or for your own actions, but instead by feeling embarrassment for somebody else after witnessing that other person experiences an embarrassing event. These emotions can be perceived as pro-social, and some say they can be seen as motives for following socially and culturally acceptable behavior.

Do-gooder derogation is a phenomenon where a person's morally motivated behavior leads to them being perceived negatively by others. The term "do-gooder" refers to a person who deviates from the majority in terms of behavior, because of their morality.

References

  1. 1 2 Mackenzie, Debora. "Big Brother' eyes make us act more honestly". New Scientist. Retrieved 2020-03-20.
  2. 1 2 Dear, Keith; Dutton, Kevin; Fox, Elaine (2019-05-01). "Do 'watching eyes' influence antisocial behavior? A systematic review & meta-analysis". Evolution and Human Behavior. 40 (3): 269–280. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2019.01.006 . ISSN   1090-5138.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Oda, Ryo; Kato, Yuta; Hiraishi, Kai (2015-09-01). "The Watching-Eye Effect on Prosocial Lying". Evolutionary Psychology. 13 (3): 1474704915594959. doi: 10.1177/1474704915594959 . ISSN   1474-7049. PMC   10480987 .
  4. 1 2 Nettle, Daniel; Nott, Kenneth; Bateson, Melissa (2012-12-12). "'Cycle Thieves, We Are Watching You': Impact of a Simple Signage Intervention against Bicycle Theft". PLOS ONE. 7 (12): e51738. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...751738N. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051738 . ISSN   1932-6203. PMC   3520908 . PMID   23251615.
  5. "Prosocial Behavior". Ethics Unwrapped. Retrieved 2020-11-10.
  6. Bateson, Melissa; Callow, Luke; Holmes, Jessica R.; Roche, Maximilian L. Redmond; Nettle, Daniel (2013-12-05). "Do Images of 'Watching Eyes' Induce Behaviour That Is More Pro-Social or More Normative? A Field Experiment on Littering". PLOS ONE. 8 (12): e82055. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...882055B. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082055 . ISSN   1932-6203. PMC   3855385 . PMID   24339990.
  7. Kelsey, Caroline; Vaish, Amrisha; Grossmann, Tobias (2018-12-01). "Eyes, More Than Other Facial Features, Enhance Real-World Donation Behavior". Human Nature. 29 (4): 390–401. doi:10.1007/s12110-018-9327-1. ISSN   1936-4776. PMID   30324537. S2CID   53108021.
  8. "People donate more when they sense they are being watched: Study suggests that eyes serve as cues to monitor and elicit charitable behavior". ScienceDaily. Retrieved 2020-03-20.
  9. Neilands, Patrick, Rebecca Hassall, Frederique Derks, Amalia PM Bastos, and Alex H. Taylor (2020). "Watching eyes do not stop dogs stealing food: evidence against a general risk-aversion hypothesis for the watching-eye effect". Scientific Reports. 10 (1): 1153. Bibcode:2020NatSR..10.1153N. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-58210-4. PMC   6981177 . PMID   31980699.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. Oda, Ryo (2019-05-28). "Is the watching-eye effect a fluke?". Letters on Evolutionary Behavioral Science. 10 (1): 4–6. doi: 10.5178/lebs.2019.68 . ISSN   1884-927X.