Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 23;31(12):1585–1601. doi: 10.1177/0956797620957625

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5.

Interaction between age group and direction of influence (prosocial vs. selfish) on influence probability. In the top graph, influence probability is shown as a function of age (treated as a categorical variable), separately for the two directions of influence. Dots are the frequencies of trials (%) in which participants changed their donations and conformed them with those of other donors. The violin plots represent kernel probability density of the data at different values (randomly jittered across the x-axis). Within each age group, the black squares represent the fixed-effects estimates of influence probability from the trial-level generalized (logistic) linear mixed model, and error bars show the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Symbols indicate significant and marginally significant differences between groups (p < .10, *p < .05, ***p < .001, Bonferroni corrected). For statistics of all contrasts, see Tables S4a and S4b in the Supplemental Material available online. In the bottom graph, influence probability is shown as a function of age (treated as a continuous variable) and direction of influence. Circles are grand means of trials in which participants adjusted their donations to the observed donations. Circle area is proportional to the number of participants; the key shows three examples for reference. The colored lines shows the overall trends for the inverse of age as estimated by the generalized linear mixed model, and the shaded areas are 95% confidence intervals. Asterisks indicate a significant trend (***p < .001).