I miss this view, especially on sunny days like these...

We also find indications that anticipated reciprocity matters more to people without caregiving experience than to people with caregiving experience that didn't include burden. However, that effect is not robust when we employ different analytical strategies (2/2)

Actually, it is a child-aimed game! I think the idea is to raise awareness about plasma donation and its importance (but you'd have to check out the paper for the exact assumed mechanisms)

Not sure if this is what you're looking for but my colleague Alexandra Ciausescu has developed a serious game to stimulate (blood) plasma donation: doi.org/10.1016/j.co...

The construction of this dataset was supported by the Open Seeds program (Open Life Science) and a grant by VU Amsterdam! A big thank you to the Open Seeds community for answering all my questions and helping me make the first steps with this project!

Unique feature: the measurements of giving and sponsorships are the same over the years, perfect for trend analysis!

The data and documentation are freely and publicly available #OpenScience #FAIR

Thanks, Sarah!

The article shows that neighbors are motivated to help each other by direct reciprocity, indirect reciprocity and the necessity of help. Moreover, people are motivated more strongly by the anticipation of reciprocity when the neighbors are characterized as unhelpful.

The results indicate that prosocial behavior is dynamic behavior that depends on what close others do. Because the results are mostly driven by people who start helping motivating their partner, this study suggests that people can draw their romantic partner into prosocial behavior (6/6)

Our fixed effects analyses indicate that when someone starts engaging in informal helping, the likelihood that their partner provides informal help increases as well. The effect is stronger when family members are the recipients of informal help, but does not differ between partners. (5/6)

We find that people whose partner engages in informal helping have a higher likelihood to engage in informal helping as well. This difference is visible regardless of recipient (kin or non-kin) and gender (4/6)

Informal helping is defined here as practical support that people give to each other that is not organized by formal organizations. Examples are driving a friend to an appointment, watching a neighbor’s children, or doing gardenwork for a relative (3/6)

We build on prior research that shows a positive relationship between partners’ prosocial behavior but mostly based on cross-sectional data. Using longitudinal data from the Swiss Household Panel, we examine the relationship between partner’s informal helping behavior and gender differences therein

Thanks for all your hard work! Would you mind adding me to a sociology starter pack?