Group cooperation under uncertainty

Article

Abstract

Previous research has shown an ‘interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect’: intergroup interactions generally lead to less cooperative outcomes than interindividual interactions. We replicate the discontinuity effect in the deterministic prisoner’s dilemma, but find that groups are more cooperative than individuals in a stochastic version of the game. Three major factors that underlie the usual discontinuity effect are reduced in the stochastic environment: greed, fear, and persuasion power. Two group mechanisms are proposed to explain the reversed discontinuity effect: the motivation to avoid guilt and blame when making decisions that affect others’ welfare, and the social pressure to conform to certain norms when one is in a group setting.

Keywords

Group decision Uncertainty Cooperation Experimental economics 

JEL Classification

D81 

References

  1. Ai, C., & Norton, E. C. (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters, 80, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, J. (2001). Confusion of group-interest and self-interest in parochial cooperation on behalf of a group. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45, 283–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: an interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Roth, A. E. (2006). The speed of learning in noisy games: partial reinforcement and the sustainability of cooperation. American Economic Review, 96, 1029–1042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berger, L. A., & Hershey, J. C. (1994). Moral hazard, risk seeking, and free riding. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornstein, G., & Ben-Yossef, M. (1994). Cooperation in intergroup and single-group social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bornstein, G., Kugler, T., & Ziegelmeyer, A. (2004). Individual and group behavior in the Centipede game: are groups more “rational” players? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 599–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bottom, W. P., Ladha, K., & Miller, J. (2002). Propagation of individual bias through group decision making: error in the treatment of asymmetrically informative signals. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 25(2), 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charness, G., & Dufwenberg, M. (2006). Promises and partnership. Econometrica, 74(6), 1579–1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charness, G., & Jackson, M. O. (2009). The role of responsibility in strategic risk-taking. The Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 69(3), 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charness, G., Karni, E., & Levin, D. (2007). Individual and group decision making under risk: an experimental study of Bayesian updating and violations of first-order stochastic dominance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 35(2), 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colman, A. M. (2001). A dictionary of psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cooper, D. J., & Kagel, J. H. (2005). Are two heads better than one? Team versus individual play in signaling games. American Economic Review, 477–509: American Economic Association.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, J. H. (1992). Some compelling intuitions about group consensus decisions, theoretical and empirical research, and interpersonal aggregation phenomena: selected examples, 1950–1990. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dawes, R. M., & Thaler, R. H. (1988). Anomalies: cooperation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(3), 187–197.Google Scholar
  17. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heal, G., & Kunreuther, H. (2007). Modeling interdependent risks. Risk Analysis, 27(3), 621–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (1998). Differential distrust of groups and of individuals. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 75–107). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Insko, C. A., Pinkley, R. L., Hoyle, R. H., Dalton, B., Hong, G., Slim, R., et al. (1987). Individual versus group discontinuity: the role of intergroup contact. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 250–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Hoyle, R. H., Dardis, G. J., & Graetz, K. A. (1990). Individual-group discontinuity as a function of fear and greed. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 58, 68–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: a critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1141–1151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47, 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kerr, L. N., MacCoun, R. J., & Kramer, G. P. (1996). Bias in judgment: comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kocher, M., & Sutter, M. (2005). The decision maker matters: individual versus group behaviour in experimental beauty-contest games. Economic Journal, 115(500), 200–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kocher, M., & Sutter, M. (2007). Decision making process in gift-exchange experiments. Empirica, 34(1), 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kunreuther, H., & Heal, G. (2003). Interdependent security. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26(2–3), 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kunreuther, H., Silvasi, G., Bradlow, E. & Small, D. (2008). Bayesian analysis of deterministic and Stochastic prisoner’s dilemma games. Wharton Risk Center Working Paper #2008-06-06.Google Scholar
  29. Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences Number 7. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Orbell, J., & Dawes, R. (1981). Social dilemmas. In G. Stephenson & H. H. Davis (Eds.), Progress in applied social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 37–65). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  31. Rapoport, A., & Eshed-Levy, D. (1989). Provision of step-level public goods: effects of greed and fear of being gypped. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44(3), 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schopler, J., Insko, C. A., Drigotas, S., Wieselquist, J., Pemberton, M., & Cox, C. (1995). The role of identifiability in the reduction of interindividual-intergroup discontinuity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 553–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Seymour, B., Daw, N. D., Dayan, P., Singer, T., & Dolan, R. J. (2007). Differential encoding of losses and gains in the human striatum. Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 4826–4831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., Jack White, B., William, R. H., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robber’s cave experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  35. Shupp, R. S., & Williams, A. W. (2008). Risk preference differentials of small groups and individuals. The Economic Journal, 118(525), 258–283.Google Scholar
  36. Song, F. (2008). Trust and reciprocity behavior and behavioral forecasts: individuals versus group-representatives. Games and Economic Behavior, 62(2), 675–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stoner, J. A. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Cambridge: Unpublished master’s thesis, School of Industrial Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  38. Sutter, M. (2005). Are four heads better than two? An experimental beauty-contest game with teams of different size. Economics Letters, 41–46.Google Scholar
  39. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  41. Wildschut, T., Pinter, B., Vevea, J. L., Insko, C. A., & Schopler, J. (2003). Beyond the group mind: a quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 698–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Research on Environmental DecisionsColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Decisions Sciences and Public Policy, Wharton SchoolUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.Wharton Risk Management and Decision Processes CenterPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations