Toward more locomotion in experimental games
This chapter evaluates the traditional experimental gaming approach to the study of social interdependence. In addition to outlining several strengths, it is asserted that this approach is limited in two respects: (1) it does not enable a researcher to examine the ways in which individuals express their simple motivations and simple strategies when they are provided with more varied domain of options, and (2) it neglects an important domain of social interaction, namely those situations in which individuals are able to alter the underlying interdependence structure. The chapter reviews prior research that extends the traditional experimental gaming approach by offering subjects the possibility to alter the nature of interdependence. It is concluded that the ways in which individuals express their simple motivations and strategies may be importantly shaped by the availability of other options than a cooperative and noncooperative choice. To provide more insight into these processes, we should consider a greater locomotion in the way in which we use outcome matrices in our research on social interdependence.
KeywordsBehavioral Control Social Dilemma Experimental Social Psychology Interdependence Structure Experimental Game
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Dawes, R.M. & Orbell, J.M. (1992). Optimism about others as cooperators’ comparative advantage. Paper presented at the fifth international conference on social dilemmas. Bielefeld, Germany.Google Scholar
- Kelley, H.H. & Thibaut, J.W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Kuhlman, D.M., Camac, C., & Cunha, D.A. (1986). Individual differences in social orientation. In H. Wilke, D. Messick, & C. Rutte (Eds.), Experimental Social Dilemmas (pp. 151–176). New York: Verlag Peter Lang.Google Scholar
- Luce, R.D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey. London: John Wiley and sons.Google Scholar
- Messick, D.M., & Brewer, M.B. (1983). Solving social dilemmas: A review. In L. Wheeler & P. Shaver (Eds.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
- Nemeth, C. (1972). A critical analysis of research utilizing the prisoner’s dilemma paradigm for the study of bargaining. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 203–234.Google Scholar
- Simmons, R.T., Dawes, R.M. & Orbell, J.M. (1984). Defection in social dilemmas: Is fear or is greed the problem? Unpublished Manuscript. Department of Political Science, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
- Thibaut, J.W., & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Van Lange, P.A.M., Liebrand, W.B.G., Messick, D.M., & Wilke, H.A.M. (1992). Introduction and literature review. In W.B.G. Liebrand, D.M. Messick, & H.A.M. Wilke (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 3–28). London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
- Van Lange, P.A.M., & Veenendaal, A.F.M. (1992). Seeking and avoiding interdependence: A transition list approach. Paper presented at the fifth international conference on social dilemmas. Bielefeld, Germany.Google Scholar