Computer-mediated communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: an experimental analysis

Abstract

One of the most consistent findings in experimental studies of social dilemmas is the positive influence of face-to-face communication on cooperation. The face-to-face `communication effect' has been recently explained in terms of a `focus theory of norms': successful communication focuses agents on pro-social norms, and induces preferences and expectations conducive to cooperation. 1 Many of the studies that point to a communication effect, however, do not further explore whether and to what extent the communication medium affects cooperative behavior. In this article, we ask if pro-social behavior can emerge and survive in computer-mediated environments. We show that, like face-to-face communication, computer-mediated communication also positively affects cooperation in social dilemmas, but cooperation is more difficult to establish and maintain. We argue that the discrepancy between the computer-mediated and the face-to-face communication effects is a consequence of the distinct capabilities of different media to focus agents on pro-social norms and to allow them to develop mutual expectations about future behavior.

Promises and Expectations

“…This is because the legal de…nition of a contract requires the existence of a promise as one of its elements (Restatement 2d of Contracts §1). 4 Notable contributions to the broader literature on promise keeping in political sciences and social psychology include Ostrom, Walker, and Gardner (1992), Kerr and Kaufman-Gilliland (1994), Sally (1995), and Bicchieri and Lev-On (2007). In legal philosophy classic references include Fried (1981), Atiyah (1983), and Scanlon (1998).…”

Commitment to Pay Taxes: A Field Experiment on the Importance of Promise

“…In particular, promises change the expectations of interaction partners and thus improve coordination between actors. The promise-makers, for their part, assume that their message will be taken for granted by the receivers and live up to their word, even when the promisor has to forego material benefits in order to keep the promise (Hurkens and Kartik 2009, Bicchieri and Lev-On 2007, Charness and Dufwenberg 2006, Ellingsen and Johannesson 2004, Kerr and Kaufman-Gilliland 1994, Ostrom et al 1992. Hence, the second effect of promises is through changed beliefs.…”

The Importance of Knowing Your Own Reputation

“…Believing that the partner is a conditional cooperator is not enough; Alice must believe that Bob believes her to be a conditional 2 Information about past actions is not necessary for conditional cooperation. In one-shot games and repeated games without observable actions, identification of conditional cooperators can be based on pre-play communication, in which conditional cooperators signal their intentions or commitments (Brosig et al, 2003;Bicchieri and Lev-On, 2007;Bochet and Putterman, 2009). This, however, is not relevant for our experiment.…”