Advertisement

Promoting Cooperation in Social Dilemmas via Fairness Norms and Group Goals

  • Ali Kazemi
  • Daniel Eek

In everyday life, people often encounter situations where their personal interests are at odds with the welfare of a larger collective to which they belong. What seems to be an individually rational choice may later have detrimental effects on the wellbeing of the group. Such conflicts of interest are referred to as social dilemmas (Dawes, 1980). Social dilemmas are formally defined as situations in which (1) individual outcomes for non-cooperative behavior or defection are larger than outcomes for cooperative behavior (favoring the collective interest), regardless of how other members in a collective behave; but (2) if all members adhere to this individually rational behavior, all members will acquire a lower payoff in the end as compared to if all had chosen to cooperate in the first place.

Keywords

Public Good Equality Principle Allocation Decision Social Dilemma Experimental Social Psychology 
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. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allison, S. T., McQueen, L. R., Schaerfl, L. M. (1992). Social decision making processes and the equal partitionment of shared resources. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, W. (1980). Friendship and fairness: Effects of type of relationship and task performance on choice of distributive rules. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 402–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batson, D. C. (1994). Why act for the public good? Four answers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 603–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biel, A., Eek, D., Gärling, T. (1997). Distributive justice and willingness to pay for municipality child care. Social Justice Research, 10, 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Camerer, C.F. (1990). Behavioral game theory. In R.M. Hogarth (ed.), Insights in Decision Making (pp. 311–336). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cornes, R., Sandler, T. (1996). The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawes, R. M., McTavish, J., Shaklee, H. (1977). Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people’s behavior in a common dilemma situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawes, R. M., Thaler, R. H. (1988). Anomalies: Cooperation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2, 187–197.Google Scholar
  11. De Cremer, D. (2002). Respect and cooperation in social dilemmas: The importance of feeling included. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1335–1341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Cremer, D. (2003). Non-economic motives predicting cooperation in public good dilemmas: The effect of received respect on contributions. Social Justice Research, 16, 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Cremer, D., Van Dijk, E. (2003). Fairness and ethics in social decision making. Social Justice Research, 16, 191–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Dreu, C. K. W. (1996). Gain-loss frame in outcome-interdependence: Does it influence equality or equity considerations? European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis for distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive Justice: A Social Psychological Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Eek, D., Biel, A. (2003). The interplay between greed, efficiency, and fairness in public-goods dilemmas. Social Justice Research, 16, 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eek, D., Biel, A., Gärling, T. (1998). The effect of distributive justice on willingness to pay for municipality child care: An extension of the GEF hypothesis. Social Justice Research, 11, 121–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eek, D., Biel, A., Gärling, T. (2001). Cooperation in asymmetric social dilemmas when equality is perceived as unfair. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 649–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foddy, M (2005). Exclusion and inclusion in social dilemmas: Who do you toss out of the life-boat? Paper presented at the XIth International Conference on Social Dilemmas, Krakow, Poland.Google Scholar
  21. Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (ed.), Managerial Ethics: Moral Management of People and Processes (pp. 13–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Folger, R., Sheppard, B. H., Buttram, R. T. (1995). Equity, equality, and need: Three faces of social justice. In B. Benedict & J. Z. Rubin (eds.), Conflict, Cooperation, and Justice: Essays Inspired by the Work of Morton Deutsch (pp. 261–289). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Goode, W. J. (1978). The Celebration of Heroes: Prestige as a Control System. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kazemi, A., Eek, D. (in press). Effects of group goal and resource valence on allocation preferences in public good dilemmas. Social Behavior and Personality.Google Scholar
  25. Kazemi, A., Eek, D., Gärling, T. (2005a). Effects of Fairness and Distributive Goal on Preferred Allocations in Public Good Dilemmas (Göteborg Psychological Reports, 35, No. 4). Sweden: Göteborg University, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
  26. Kazemi, A., Eek, D., Gärling, T. (2005b). Effects of Fairness, Group Goal, and Self-Interest on Allocation Preferences in Step-Level Public Good Dilemmas (Göteborg Psychological Reports, 35, No. 5). Sweden: Göteborg University, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
  27. Kazemi, A., Eek, D., Gärling, T. (2006). The Interplay Between Greed, Fairness, and Group Goal in Allocation of Public Goods (Göteborg Psychological Reports, 36, No. 2). Sweden: Göteborg University, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
  28. Kerr, N. L. (1995). Norms in social dilemmas. In D. Schroeder (ed.), Social Dilemmas: Perspectives on Individuals and Groups (pp. 31–47). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  29. Komorita, S. S., Parks, C. D. (1994). Social Dilemmas. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.Google Scholar
  30. Kreps, D. M. (1990). Game Theory and Economic Modelling. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lamm, H., Kayser, E. (1978). The allocation of monetary gain and loss following dyadic performance: The weight given to effort and ability under conditions of low and high intra-dyadic attraction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 8, 275–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lamm, H., Schwinger, T. (1983). Need consideration in allocation decisions: Is it just? Journal of Social Psychology, 119, 205–209.Google Scholar
  33. Lind, E. A., Van den Bos, K. (2002). When fairness works: Toward a general theory of uncertainty management. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Kramer (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 24, pp. 181–224). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  34. Major, B., Deaux, K. (1982). Individual differences in justice behavior. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (eds.), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior (pp. 43–76). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A., Northcraft, G. B. (1995). Equity, equality, or need? The effects of organizational culture on the allocation of benefits and burdens. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 276–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. March, J. (1994). A Primer on Decision-Making: How Decisions Happen. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  37. Markóczy, L. (2004). Multiple motives behind single acts of co-operation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 1018–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marwell, G., Ames, R. E. (1979). Experiments on the provision of public goods. I: Resources, interest, group size, and the free-rider problem. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 1335–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meeker, B. F., Elliott, G. C. (1987). Counting the costs: Equity and the allocation of negative group products. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 7–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Messick, D. M. (1995). Equality, fairness, and social conflict. Social Justice Research, 8, 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Messick, D. M., Brewer, M. B. (1983). Solving social dilemmas: A review. In L. Wheeler & P. Shaver (eds.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 11–44). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Messick, D. M., Sentis, K. P. (1979). Fairness and preference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 418–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pillutla, M. M., Chen, X. -P. (1999). Social norms and cooperation in social dilemmas: The effects of context and feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 81–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schroeder, D. A., Steel, J. E., Woodell, A. J., Bembenek, A. F. (2003). Justice within social dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 374–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schwinger, T., Lamm, H. (1981). Justice norms in allocation decisions: Need consideration as a function of resource adequacy for complete need satisfaction, recipients’ contributions, and recipients’ interpersonal attraction. Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 235–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scott, J. F. (1971). Internalization of Norms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  47. Sherif, M. (1966). The Psychology of Social Norms. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  48. Sondak, H., Neale, M. A., Pinkley, R. L. (1995). The negotiated allocation of benefits and burdens: The impact of outcome valence, contribution, and relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64, 249–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tenbrunsel, A. E., Messick, D. M. (1999). Sanctioning systems, decision frames, and cooperation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 684–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Törnblom, K. Y. (1992). The social psychology of distributive justice. In K. R. Scherer (ed.), Distributive Justice from an Interdisciplinary Perspective (pp. 177–284). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Törnblom, K. Y., Ahlin, E. (1998). Mode of accomplishing positive and negative outcomes: Its effects on fairness evaluations. Social Justice Research, 11, 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Törnblom, K. Y., Jonsson, D. R. (1985). Subrules of the equality and contribution principles: Their perceived fairness in distribution and retribution. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Törnblom, K. Y., Jonsson, D. R. (1987). Distribution vs. retribution: The perceived justice of the contribution and equality principles for cooperative and competitive relationships. Acta Sociologica, 30, 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tyler, T. R. (2005). Managing conflicts of interest within organizations: Does activating social values change the impact of self-interest on behavior? In D. A. Moore, D. M. Cain, G. Loewenstein, & M. H. Bazerman (eds.), Conflicts of Interest: Challenges and Solutions in Business, Law, Medicine, and Public Policy (pp. 13–35). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Tyler, T. R., Dawes, R. M. (1993). Fairness in groups: Comparing the self-interest and social identity perspectives. In B. A. Mellers & J. Baron (eds.), Psychological Perspectives on Justice: Theory and Applications (pp. 87–108). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Tyler, T. R., Degoey, P. (1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas: Procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 482–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  59. Van Dijk, E., Grodzka, M. (1992). The influence of endowments asymmetry and information level on the contribution to a public step good. Journal of Economic Psychology, 13, 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van Dijk, E., Wilke, H. A. M. (1993). Differential interests, equity, and public good provision. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van Dijk, E., Wilke, H. A. M. (1995). Coordination rules in asymmetric social dilemmas: A comparison between public good dilemmas and resource dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Dijk, E., Wilke, H. (2000). Decision-induced focusing in social dilemmas: Give-some, keep-some, take-some, and leave-some dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Dijk, E., Wilke, H., Wilke, M., Metman, L. (1999). What information do we use in social dilemmas? Environmental uncertainty and the employment of coordination rules. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Lange, P. A. M., Liebrand, W. B. G., Messick, D. M., Wilke, H. A. M. (1992). Introduction and literature review. In W. Liebrand, D. M. Messick, & H. Wilke (eds.), Social Dilemmas: Theoretical Issues and Research Findings (pp. 3–28). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  65. Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Tenbrunsel, A. E., Bazerman, M. H. (1996). Egocentric interpretations of fairness in asymmetric, environmental social dilemmas: Explaining harvesting behavior and the role of communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Weber, J. M., Kopelman, S., Messick, D. M. (2004). A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilke, H. A. M. (1991). Greed, efficiency and fairness in resource management situations. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 165–187). New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  68. Wilke, H. A. M., De Boer, K. L., Liebrand, W. B. G. (1986). Standards of justice and quality of power in a social dilemma situation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57–65.Google Scholar
  69. Wit, A., Wilke, H., Oppewal, H. (1992). Fairness in asymmetric social dilemmas. In W. Liebrand, D. Messick, & H. Wilke (eds.), Social Dilemmas: Theoretical Issues and Research Findings (pp. 183–197). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Kazemi
    • 1
  • Daniel Eek
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Technology and SocietyUniversity of SkövdeSweden
  2. 2.Psykologiska InstitutionenGöteborg UniversitySweden

Personalised recommendations