Group transformation: How demonstrability promotes intra-group cooperation in social dilemmas

Hopthrow, Tim; Abrams, Dominic

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.04.002

Cited by 7 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These individual decision making phases allow researchers to observe whether and how the experience of collaboration shifts individuals' decisions between the precollaboration and postcollaboration phases. These studies have explored decision making across various domains, including allotment decisions in the dictator game (Cason & Mui, 1997;Luhan, Kocher, & Sutter, 2009), cooperation in a prisoner's dilemma (Hopthrow & Abrams, 2010), and risk preferences (Deck, Lee, Reyes, & Rosen, 2012). Despite these studies involving different types of decisions and contexts, individuals' decisions have generally been observed to be influenced by the collaborative decision-making experience.…”

Section: Collaborative Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are intertemporal preferences contagious? Evidence from collaborative decision making

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior research has provided substantial insight into individuals' intertemporal preferences (i.e., preferences about delayed rewards). In the present study, we instead investigated the preferences of small groups of individuals asked to express collective intertemporal decisions. The paradigm consisted of three phases. During the precollaboration and postcollaboration phases, participants completed an intertemporal decision task individually. During the collaboration phase, participants completed a similar task in small groups, reaching mutually-agreed-upon decisions. The results suggest that group preferences were systematically related to the mean of the group members' precollaboration preferences. In addition, collaborative decision making altered the group members' intertemporal preferences. Specifically, individuals' postcollaboration preferences converged toward the preferences of their respective groups. Furthermore, we found that individuals' postcollaboration preferences were independently related to both their precollaboration preferences and the preferences of the other group members, suggesting that individuals' postcollaboration preferences represented a revision of their precollaboration preferences based on the preferences observed in other group members. In Experiment 2, we demonstrated that similar patterns of results were found whether participants were making matching judgments or binary choices.

show abstract

Section: Collaborative Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are intertemporal preferences contagious? Evidence from collaborative decision making

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The dearth of research into social interaction within the intergroup domain has arguably left some of Lewin’s most important insights to wither on the vine. Indeed, one recent review identifies group discussion as one of the most significant drivers of cooperative behaviour but notes a considerable lack of insight as to why this is the case (Meleady, Hopthrow, & Crisp, 2013; see also Hopthrow & Abrams, 2010). Postmes, Spears, Lee, and Novak (2005) identify a similar lack of theoretical resolution in relation to the group polarization phenomenon.…”

Section: Group Interaction and Social Identity Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group interaction as the crucible of social identity formation: A glimpse at the foundations of social identities for collective action

Thomas

McGarty

Mavor

2015

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many of the world's biggest problems are being tackled through the formation of new groups yet very little research has directly observed the processes by which new groups form to respond to social problems. The current paper draws on seminal research by Lewin (1947) to advance a perspective as to how such identities form through processes of small group interaction. Multi-level structural equation modelling involving 58 small group discussions (with N = 234) demonstrates that focused group discussion can boost the commitment to take collective action, beliefs in the efficacy of that action and members' social identification with other supporters of the cause. The results are consistent with the new commitment to action flowing from emergent social identities.Keywords: Social identity formation, small group interaction, collective action. THE FOUNDATIONS OF IDENTITY AND ACTION 3 Group Interaction as the Crucible of Social Identity Formation: A Glimpse at the Foundations of Social Identities for Collective ActionIn order to effect large scale social change we clearly need to do more than focus individual minds on the future. Instead, we need large sections of the public to embrace sustainable solutions collectively. To promote collective action of this kind, we need to fuse individual orientations toward the future with social identities that have the capacity to engender and sustain positive action. (Postmes, Rabinovich, Morton, & van Zomeren, 2012, p.194) The field of social psychology is filled with research on attitude change, prejudice, self-concept formation, stereotyping, and emotions, most of which has ignored how these processes operate in small groups. This neglect means that many questions central to the human social experience have not been investigated. (Wittenbaum & Moreland, 2008, p.188) In 1947 Kurt Lewin, one of the founders of modern social psychology, published findings of research into what he termed 'group decision'. Charged with the task of finding ways to change attitudes towards serving offal as a family meal as part of the World War II effort, Lewin compared the effects of listening to a lecture, with the effects of group discussion on samples of women who made food purchasing decisions for their families. The findings were striking. Of the women who had listened to the lecture, only 3% went on to prepare offal. Conversely, of those who had participated in a group discussion (about difficulties facing women in serving offal), 32% subsequently served offal to their families. Lewin (1958, p.202) concluded that "discussion, if conducted correctly, is likely to lead to a much higher degree of involvement". THE FOUNDATIONS OF IDENTITY AND ACTION 4The legacies of this study were twofold. Lewin was the first to demonstrate the powerful effects of group interaction on changing attitudes and behaviour, findings that were mirrored some years later with the advent of the group polarization phenomenon (Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969;Myers & Bishop, 1970). Lewin (1947, p. 150) was als...

show abstract

“…Decision makers' understanding of the dilemma has also been shown to be an important factor influencing cooperation levels. When decision makers have a clear understanding of the dilemma (Hopthrow & Abrams, 2010), they have greater information about others' decisions ( Jorgenson & Papciak, 1981;Sell & Wilson, 1991), or they have had prior success coordinating their actions with others (Knez & Camerer, 2000), cooperation is enhanced.…”

Section: Development Of Svo Trust and Cfcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooperation, Trust, and Antagonism

Parks

Joireman

Lange³

2013

Psychol Sci Public Interest

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most continually vexing problems in society is the variability with which citizens support endeavors that are designed to help a great number of people. In this article, we examine the twin roles of cooperative and antagonistic behavior in this variability. We find that each plays an important role, though their contributions are, understandably, at odds. It is this opposition that produces seeming unpredictability in citizen response to collective need. In fact, we suggest that careful consideration of the research allows one to often predict when efforts to provide a collectively beneficial good will succeed and when they will fail. To understand the dynamics of participation in response to collective need, it is necessary to distinguish between the primary types of need situations. A public good is an entity that relies in whole or in part on contributions to be provided. Examples of public goods are charities and public broadcasting. Public goods require that citizens experience a short-term loss (of their contribution) in order to realize a long-term gain (of the good). However, because everyone can use the good once it is provided, there is also an incentive to not contribute, let others give, and then take advantage of their efforts. This state of affairs introduces a conflict between doing what is best for oneself and what is best for the group. In a public goods situation, cooperation and antagonism impact how one resolves this conflict. The other major type of need situation is a common-pool resource problem. Here, a good is fully provided at the outset, and citizens may sample from it. The resource is usually, but not necessarily, partially replenished. Examples of replenished resources are drinking water and trees; examples of resources that are functionally not replenished are oil and minerals. Common-pool resources allow citizens to experience a short-term gain (by getting what they want in the early life of the resource) but also present the possibility of a long-term loss (if the resource dries up). As with public goods, there is thus a conflict between, on the one hand, acting in one's best interest and taking as much as one wants all the time and, on the other, acting for the good of the group, which requires taking a lesser amount so that the replenishment rate can keep up with the rate of use. As with public goods, both cooperation and antagonism affect this decision. With these situations in mind, we can now dig deeply into the dynamics of both cooperation and antagonism. Cooperation is one of the most heavily studied aspects of human behavior, yet despite this attention, there is much that is not understood about it, including its fundamental base. There are a number of different perspectives on the base. Interdependence theory argues that cooperation is driven by how one interprets the subjective value of the outcomes that will result from various combinations of behaviors. A person who sees a potential result of "50 to you, 50 to me" as "We both would do well" is more likely to ...

show abstract

Group transformation: How demonstrability promotes intra-group cooperation in social dilemmas

Cited by 7 publications

References 17 publications

Are intertemporal preferences contagious? Evidence from collaborative decision making

Are intertemporal preferences contagious? Evidence from collaborative decision making

Group interaction as the crucible of social identity formation: A glimpse at the foundations of social identities for collective action

Cooperation, Trust, and Antagonism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About