Gain–loss frames and cooperation in two-person social dilemmas: A transformational analysis.

Abstract

Cooperation in 2-person social dilemmas was examined when people frame outcomes as gains or as losses. It was argued that losses loom larger than gains and that depending on people's social motive, behavioral options in social dilemmas are valued differently. Results of 3 experiments supported the predictions based on prospect theory and interdependence theory: Pro-socials (cooperators) cooperated more in a loss than in a gain frame, whereas individualists cooperated less in a loss than in a gain frame. Unexpectedly, competitors cooperated as little in a loss as in a gain frame, which was attributed to a floor effect. It was concluded that this research explains inconsistent findings from previous research on gain-loss frames and shows that loss-framed individuals pursue their cooperative or individualistic goals to a greater extent than gain-framed individuals but pursue their competitive goals to about the same extent.

Deliberation erodes cooperative behavior — Even towards competitive out-groups, even when using a control condition, and even when eliminating selection bias

“…de Heus, Hoogervorst, & Dijk, 2010). This may occur because decision frames have divergent effects based on an individual's prior motives, such that prosocial people become more cooperative, and 'individualists' less cooperative (De Dreu & McCusker, 1997). Because people's prior motives are different with regards to ingroup and out-group members, we might therefore expect loss frames to encourage defection towards out-groups (because without a prior motive to be cooperative, loss frames make people more selfish) and cooperation towards in-groups (because loss frames enhance the existing motive to help the in-group member).…”

Social value orientation, organizational goal concerns and interdepartmental problem‐solving behavior

“…Social psychological experiments have shown that social value orientation strongly influences how people think and behave in social settings (De Dreu & McCusker, 1997;De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995;Olekalns, Smith, & Kibby, 1996;Van Lange & Liebrand, 1991 Porter & Lawler, 1968).…”

Social Dilemma Studies

“…In the researches conducted by the Western scholars, it was found that given the traffic dilemma caused by the limitation of resources, the subjects with social orientation were more willing to use mass transportation (instead of insisting on the convenience of driving a car) than those with individualistic orientation [41]. De Dreu and McCusker (1997) [55] and Joireman (2001) [42] also found that the crux of social dilemma was more easily solved when people face cooperative-oriented opponents than when they face individualistic or competitive-oriented opponents. And the results of our research agreed with the proposition that people with different social value orientations tended to behave differently in social dilemma.…”