Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 2, Issue 6, pp 491–507 | Cite as

The commons dilemma

A review of contributions from psychology
  • Julian J. Edney
  • Christopher S. Harper
Profile

Abstract

Whenever a short-term or local need in the exploitation of a scarce natural resource must be pitted against its long-term use or the needs of the larger community, the commons dilemma arises. The study of commons dilemmas originated in agricultural economies but has importance in all resource management areas. Psychologists have recently found it to be a useful paradigm in the study of decision-making behavior.

This paper reviews the commons dilemma as it has been used in three areas of psychological research: games theory, animal and human territorial behavior, and behavior reinforcement. In the first area, results show how communication within groups operates in cooperation/competition situations. In the second, the effects of social and political ideologies are examined. In the third, the implications of the commons dilemma with regard to breaking out of “social traps” are discussed. Throughout, the relevance of this basic psychological research to rational resource management is made clear. An extensive bibliography of relevant original research is provided.

Key words

Environmental psychology Behavior Games theory Reinforcement Competition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature cited

  1. Acheson, J. M. 1975. The lobster fiefs: Economic and ecological effects of territoriality in the Maine lobster industry. Human Ecol. 3:183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altman, I. 1970. Territorial behavior in humans: An analysis of the concept. In L. A. Pastalan and D. A. Carson (Eds.), Spatial Behavior of Older People. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 228 pp.Google Scholar
  3. Ardrey, R. 1966. The Territorial Imperative. Atheneum, New York, 390 pp.Google Scholar
  4. Bakker, C. D., and M. K. Bakker-Rabdau. 1973. No Trespassing. Chaulder and Sharo, San Francisco, 284 pp.Google Scholar
  5. Bixenstine, V. E., and J. Douglas. 1967. Effects of psychopathology on group consensus and cooperative choice in a six person game. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 5:32–37.Google Scholar
  6. Bixenstine, V. E., C. A. Levitt, and K. V. Wilson. 1966. Collaborations among six persons in a prisoner's dilemma game. Conflict Resol. 10:488–495.Google Scholar
  7. Brechner, K. C., 1977. An experimental analysis of social traps. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 13:552–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caldwell, M. D. 1976. Communication and sex effects in a five-person prisoner's dilemma game. J. of Personal. and Soc. Psychol. 33:273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cass, R. C. 1975. Territoriality and the tragedy of the commons: A social trap analysis. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  10. Christy, F. T. 1975. Property rights in the world ocean. Nat. Resources J. 15:695–712.Google Scholar
  11. Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V., and R. C. Bishop. 1975. “Common property” as a concept in natural resources property. Nat. Resources J. 15:713–727.Google Scholar
  12. Crowe, B. 1969. The tragedy of the commons revisited. Science 166:1103–1107.Google Scholar
  13. Dawes, R. 1973. The commons dilemma game: An n-person mixed motive game with a dominating strategy for defection. Oregon Res. Inst. Res. Bull. 13(2): 1–12.Google Scholar
  14. Dawes, R. 1975. Formal models of dilemmas in social decision making.In Human Judgement and Decision Processes. Academic Press. New York, Chapter 4, pp. 87–107.Google Scholar
  15. Dawes, R. M., J. McTavish, and H. Shaklee. 1977. Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people's behavior in a commons dilemma situation J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 35:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deutsch, M. and R. M. Krauss, 1960. The effect of threat upon interpersonal bargaining. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 61:181–189.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Edney, J. J. 1974. Human territoriality. Psychol. Bull. 81:959–975.Google Scholar
  18. Grezelak, J., and T. Tyska. 1974. Some preliminary experiments on cooperation in n-person games. Polish Psychol. Bull. 5:80–91.Google Scholar
  19. Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 166:1103–1107.Google Scholar
  20. Hardin, G. 1971. Collective action as an agreeable n-person prisoner's dilemma. Behav. Sci. 16:472–481.Google Scholar
  21. Jerdee, T. H., and B. Rosen. 1974. Effects of opportunity to communicate and visibility of individual decisions on behavior in the common interest. J. Appl. Psychol. 59:712–716.Google Scholar
  22. Jones, E. E., and H. B. Gerald. 1967. Foundations of Social Psychology. Wiley, New York, 743 pp.Google Scholar
  23. Kahan, J. P. 1973. Noninteraction in an anonymous three person prisoners dilemma game. Behav. Sci. 18:124–127.Google Scholar
  24. Kelley, H. H. and J. Grezelak, 1972. Conflict between individual and common interest in an n-person relationship. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 21:190–197.Google Scholar
  25. Kelley, H. H., J. C. Condry, A. E. Dahlke, and A. H. Hill. 1965. Collective behavior in a simulated panic situation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1:20–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lloyd, W. F. 1833. Two lectures on the checks to population. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  27. Luce, R. D., and H. Raiffa. 1957. Games and Decisions. Wiley, New York, 509 pp.Google Scholar
  28. Marwell, G., and D. R. Schmitt. 1972. Cooperation in a three person prisoner's dilemma. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 21:376–383.Google Scholar
  29. Messick, D. M. 1973. To join or not to join: an approach to the unionization decision. Org. Behav. Human Perform. 10:145–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meux, E. P. 1973. Concern for the common good in an n-person game. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 28:414–418.Google Scholar
  31. Mintz, A. 1951. Non-adaptive group behavior. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 46:150–159.Google Scholar
  32. Platt, J. 1973. Social traps. Am. Psychol. 28:641–651.Google Scholar
  33. Pruitt, D. G., and M. J. Kimmel. 1977. Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis and suggestions for the future. Ann. Rev. Psychol. In press.Google Scholar
  34. Rapoport, A. 1966. Two-Person Game Theory: The Essential Ideas. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 229 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Rapoport, A. 1967. A note on the “index of cooperation” for prisoner's dilemma. J. Conflict Resol. 11:101–103.Google Scholar
  36. Rapoport, A. 1970. N-Person Game Theory. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. 331 pp.Google Scholar
  37. Rapoport, A. 1973. Experimental Games and Their Uses in Psychology. General Learning Press Module, Morristown, N.J.Google Scholar
  38. Rapoport, A., and A. M. Chammah. 1966. The game of chicken. Am. Behav. Sci. 10:10–28.Google Scholar
  39. Rapoport, A., and J. P. Kahan. 1976. When three is not always two against one: Coalitions in experimental three-person cooperative games. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 12:253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rapoport, A., and C. Orwant. 1962. Experimental games: a review. Behav. Sci. 7:1–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Rapoport, A., A. Chammah, J. Dwyer, and J. Gyr. 1962. Three person nonzerosum nonnegotiable games. Behav. Sci. 7:38–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Rubenstein, F. D., G. Watzke, R. H. Doktor, and J. Dana. 1975. The effects of two incentive schemes upon the conservation of a shared resource by five person groups. Org. Behav. Human Perform. 13:330–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schelling, T. C. 1971. On the ecology of micromotives. Publ. Interest. 25:61–98.Google Scholar
  44. Schelling, T. C. 1973. Hockey helmets, concealed weapons and daylight savings: A study of binary choices with externalities. J. Conflict Resol. 17:381–428.Google Scholar
  45. Stern, P. C. 1976. Effects of incentive and education on resource conservation decisions in a simulated commons dilemma. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 34:1285–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vinacke, W. E. 1969. Variables in experimental games: towards a field theory. Psychol. Bull. 71:293–318.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Vinacke, W. E., R. Mogy, W. Powers, C. Langan, and R. Beck. 1974. Accomodative strategy and communication in a three person matrix game. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 29:509–525.Google Scholar
  48. Von Neumann, J., and O. Morgenstern. 1944. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J, 625 pp.Google Scholar
  49. Watzke, G. E., J. M. Dana, R. H. Doktor, and F. D. Rubenstein. 1972. An experimental study of individual vs. group interest. Acta Sociol. 15:366–370.Google Scholar
  50. Weil, R. L. 1966. The n-person prisoner's dilemma: some theory and a computer oriented approach. Behav. Sci. 11:227–233.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Wynne-Edwards, V. C. 1962. Animal Dispersion in Relation to Social Behavior. Hafner, New York, 653 pp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julian J. Edney
    • 1
  • Christopher S. Harper
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyArizona State UniversityTempe

Personalised recommendations