Advertisement

Group-Based Trust in Social Dilemmas

  • Margaret Foddy
  • Robyn Dawes

In a world of strangers, whom should we trust? In the last two decades, there has been increased attention to trust between individuals, trust in organizations, and trust in groups (e.g. Cook, Hardin & Levi, 2005; Gambetta & Hamill, 2005; Kramer, 1999; Molm, 2006; Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 2004). In this chapter we address the question of trust that arises from shared membership in groups in settings which do not provide the opportunity for development of a personal history of obligation between two or more parties, nor information about the reputation of a particular person, nor an organization. Further, the situations we investigate do not involve “assurance”, or encapsulated interest (Hardin, 2001; Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994). Rather, we examine those situations where individuals have little information about others, and no guarantees of favorable treatment. In these contexts, we argue that people employ a range of heuristics which are not necessarily less reliable than calculations based on strict individual self interest. We will refer to this as “social assurance”, to distinguish it from institutional assurance and formal sanctions.

Keywords

Group Membership Social Dilemma Social Identity Theory Russell Sage Foundation Trust Game 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abrams, D. & Hogg, M. (1990). Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  2. Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 122–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brann P., & Foddy, M. (1987). Trust and the consumption of a deteriorating common resource. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31, 615–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brewer, M. B. (2000). Social identity theory and change in intergroup relations. In D. Capozza & R. Brown (Eds.), Social identity processes (pp. 117–131). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchan, N. R., Croson, R. T. A. & Dawes, R. M. (2002). Swift neighbors and persistent strangers: A cross-cultural investigation of trust and reciprocation in social exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 168–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Camerer, C.F. (1997). Progress in behavioral game theory. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11, 167–188.Google Scholar
  8. Camerer, C.F. (2003a). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. In: C. F. Camerer & E. Fehr (Eds.), Roundtable series in behavioral economics (pp. 121–135). New York, Sage & Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Camerer, C.F. (2003b). Behavioural game theory: Plausible formal models that predict accurately. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 26, 157–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caporael, L., Dawes, R.M., Orbell, J.M. & van de Kragt, A. (1989). Selfishness examined: Cooperation in the absence of egoistic incentives. Behavioral and Brain Science, 12, 227–248.Google Scholar
  11. Cook, K.S., Hardin, R. & Levi, M. (2005). Cooperation without trust? New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  12. Cook, K. S., Yamagishi, T., Cheshire, C., Cooper, R., Matsuda, M., & Mashima, R. (2005). Trust building via risk taking: A cross-societal experiment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cox, C.C. (2003). How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 46, 260–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Croson, R. & Buchan, N. (1999). Gender and culture: International experimental evidence from Trust Games. American Economic Review, 89, 386–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dasgupta, P. S. (1988). Trust as commodity. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 49–72). New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Dawes, R.M. 1980. Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 161–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dawes, R.M. & Messick, D.M. (2000). Social dilemmas. In: International Journal of Psychology: Special Issue on Diplomacy and Psychology, 35, 111–116.Google Scholar
  18. Eckel, C.C, & Wilson, R.K. (2004). Is trust a risky decision? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 55, 447–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foddy, M., & Hogg, M. (1999). Impact of leaders on resource consumption in social dilemmas: The intergroup context. In M. Foddy, M. Smithson, S. Schneider, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Resolving social dilemmas: Dynamic, structural, and intergroup aspects (pp. 309–330). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  20. Foddy, M., Smithson, M., Schneider, S. & Hogg, M. (Eds.). (1999). Resolvings social dilemmas: Dynamic, structural, and intergroup aspects. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  21. Foddy, M., Yamagishi, T., & Platow, M. (2006). Stereotypes and Expectations in group-based trust. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  22. Foddy, M., & Veronese, D. (1996). Does knowing the jointly rational solution make you want to pursue it? Motivational orientation, information, and behavior in two social dilemmas. In W.B.G. Liebrand and D.M. Messick (Eds.), Frontiers in social dilemma research (pp. 135–155). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  23. Gambetta, D. & Hamill, H. (2005). Streetwise. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  24. Hardin, R. (1991). Trusting persons, trusting institutions. In: R.J. Zeckhauser, The Strategy of choice, pp. 185–209. Cambridge, Mass: MIJ Press.Google Scholar
  25. Haslam, S. A. (2000). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Hoffarth, M. & Foddy, M. (2006). Do economists trust economists? Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  27. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Hogg, M.A., & Mullin, B.A., (1999). Joining groups to reduce uncertainty: Subjective uncertainty reduction and group identification. In D. Abrams, D. & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 249–279). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Kollock, P. (1997). Transforming social dilemmas: Group identity and cooperation. In: P. Danielson (Ed.), Modeling rational and moral agents (pp. 186–210). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kollock, P. 1998. Social dilemmas: The anatomoy of coopration. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 183–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Komorita, S.S., & Parks, C.D. (1996). Social dilemmas. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (Eds.). (1996). Trust in organisations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Kramer, R., & Brewer, M. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kramer, R. & Goldman, L. (1995). Helping the group or helping yourself? Social motives and group identification in resource dilemmas. In D.S. Schroeder (Ed.), Social dilemmas: Perspectives on individuals and groups (pp. 49–67). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  36. Kramer, R., & Wei, J. (1999). Social uncertainty and the problem of trust in social groups: The social self in doubt. In T. Tyler, R. Kramer, & O. John (Eds.), The psychology of the social self (pp. 145–167). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  37. Lawler, E. (2003). Interaction, emotion, and collective identities. In: P.J. Burke, T.J. Owens, R. Serpe & P.A. Thoits (Eds.), Advances in identity theory and research. pp 231–247. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
  38. Mansbridge, J. (1995). Rational Choice Gains by Losing. Political Psychology, 16 (1), 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Messick, D.M. (1999). Alternative logics for decision making in social settings. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 39, 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Molm, L. (2006). The social exchange framework. In P.J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 24–45). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Molm, L.D, Takahashi, N. & Peterson, G. (2000). Risk and trust in social exchange: An experimental test of a classical proposition. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 1396–1427l.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rapoport, A. (1966). N-person game theory: Concepts and applications. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  43. Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review 92, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smithson, M., & Foddy, M. (1999). Theories and strategies for the study of social dilemmas. In M. Foddy, M. Smithson, S. Schneider, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Resolving social dilemmas: Dynamic, structural and intergroup perspective (pp. 1–14). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  45. Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization in intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. I: S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.Google Scholar
  47. Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K.J. (2001). The social identity perspective in intergroup relations: Theories, themes, and controversies. In R. Brown, & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 133–152). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Van Lange, P.A.M. & Kuhlman, D.M. (1994). Social value orientations and impressions of partner’s honesty and intelligence: A test of the might versus morality effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Lange P.A.M. & Visser, K. (1999). Locomotion in social dilemmas: How people adapt to cooperative, Tit-for-tat, and non-cooperative partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 762–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Williams, K., Forgas, J. & von Hippel, W. (2005). The social outcast. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wilson, R.K, & Eckel, C.C. (2006). Judging a book by its cover: Beauty and expectations in the trust game. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yamagishi, T. (2000). Risk Taking and Trust Building. Unpublished manuscript. Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  53. Yamagishi, T., Makimura, Y., Foddy, M., Matsuda, M., Kiyonari, T., & Platow, M.J. (2005). Comparisons of Australians and Japanese on group-based cooperation. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yamagishi, T., Kanazawa, S., Mashima, R. & Terai, S. (2005). Separating trust from cooperation in a dynamic relationship. Rationality and Society, 17, 275–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yamagishi, T., & Kiyonari, T. (2000). The group as the container of generalized reciprocity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63, 116–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Yuki, M., Maddux, W.W., Brewer, M.B.B. & Takemura, K. (2005). Cross-cultural differences in relationship- and group-based trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret Foddy
    • 1
  • Robyn Dawes
    • 2
  1. 1.Carleton UniversityOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations