  Actions such as sharing food and cooperating to reach a common goal have
played a fundamental role in the evolution of human societies. These good
actions may not maximise the actor's payoff, but they maximise the other's
payoff. Consequently, their existence is puzzling for evolutionary theories.
Why should you make an effort to help others, even when no reward seems to be
at stake? Indeed, experiments typically show that humans are heterogeneous:
some may help others, while others may not. With the aim of favouring the
emergence of 'successful cultures', a number of studies has recently
investigated what mechanisms promote the evolution of a particular good action.
But still little is known about if and how good actions can spread from person
to person. For instance, does being recipient of an altruistic act increase
your probability of being cooperative with others? Plato's quote, 'Good actions
give strength to ourselves and inspire good actions in others', suggests that
is possible. We have conducted an experiment on Amazon Mechanical Turk to test
this mechanism using economic games. We have measured willingness to be
cooperative through a standard Prisoner's dilemma and willingness to act
altruistically using a binary Dictator game. In the baseline treatments, the
endowments needed to play were given by the experimenters, as usual; in the
control treatments, they came from a good action made by someone else. Across
four different comparisons and a total of 572 subjects, we have never found a
significant increase of cooperation or altruism when the endowment came from a
good action. We conclude that good actions do not necessarily inspire good
actions in others, at least in the ideal scenario of a lab experiment with
anonymous subjects.
