Advertisement

Social Justice Research

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 41–52 | Cite as

When Do People Find Cooperation Most Justified? The Effect of Trust and Self–Other Merging in Social Dilemmas

  • David De Cremer
  • Jeroen Stouten
Article

Abstract

On the basis of goal/expectation theory, it was predicted that just as in interpersonal relationships, cooperation in social dilemma groups would increase only if both trust was high and group members had a common goal of cooperation. Introducing new measures of both these two processes to the social dilemma arena, the goal of mutual cooperation was assessed by the process of self—other merging (the IOS scale), and trust by assessing the extent to which one trusted others and one believed one was perceived as trustworthy by the others. The results showed that when both self—other merging and trust was high, cooperation was indeed highest. Implications for the specific functions of trust and self—other merging in social dilemmas are discussed.

trust self—other merging social dilemmas cooperation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

FERENCES

  1. Aiken, L. S., and West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage, New York.Google Scholar
  2. Aron, A., and Aron, N. E. (1986). Love as the Expansion of Self: Understanding Attraction and Satisfaction, Hemisphere, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., and Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 63: 596-612.Google Scholar
  4. Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., and Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60: 241-253.Google Scholar
  5. Aron, A., and McLaughin-Volpe, T. (2001). Including others in the self: Extensions to own and partner's group memberships. In: Sedikides, C., and Brewer, M. B. (eds.), Individual Self, Relational Self, Collective Self, Psychology Press, Hove, England, pp. 89-108.Google Scholar
  6. Brann, P., and Foddy, M. (1987). Trust and the consumption of a deteriorating common resource. J. Conflict Resolut. 31: 615-630.Google Scholar
  7. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 17: 475-482.Google Scholar
  8. Couch, L. L., and Jones, W. H. (1997). Measuring levels of trust. J. Res. Pers. 31: 319-336.Google Scholar
  9. Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 31: 169-193.Google Scholar
  10. De Cremer, D., and Van Dijk, E. (2002). Reactions to group success and failure as a function of group identification: A test of the goal-transformation hypothesis in social dilemmas. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38: 435-442.Google Scholar
  11. De Cremer, D., van Knippenberg, D., Van Dijk, E., and van Leeuwen, E. (2002). Cooperating if One's Goals are Collective-Based: Social Identification Effects in Social Dilemmas as a Function of Goal-Transformation. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  12. De Cremer, D., and Van Vugt, M. (1998). Collective identity and cooperation in public goods dilemmas: A matter of trust or self-efficacy. Curr. Res. Soc. Psychol. 3: 1-11.Google Scholar
  13. De Cremer, D., and Van Vugt, M. (1999). Social identification effects in social dilemmas: A transformation of motives. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 29: 871-893.Google Scholar
  14. Dirks, K. T. (1999). The effects of interpersonal trust on work group performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 84: 445-455.Google Scholar
  15. Dirks, K. T. (2000). Trust in leadership and team performance: Evidence from NCAA basketball. J. Appl. Psychol. 85: 1004-1012.Google Scholar
  16. Gambetta, D. (1988). Can we trust trust? In: Gambetta, D. (ed.), Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp. 213-237.Google Scholar
  17. Granovetter, M. (1992). Problems of explanation in economic society. In: Nohria, N., and Eccles, R. G. (ed.), Network and Organizations, Harvard Business Press, Boston, pp. 22-55.Google Scholar
  18. Jones, G. R., and George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implications for cooperation and teamwork. Acad. Manage. Rev. 23: 531-546.Google Scholar
  19. Kerr, N. (1992). Efficacy as a causal and moderating variable in social dilemmas. In: Liebrand, W. B. G., Messick, D. M., and Wilke, H. A. M. (eds.), Social Dilemmas: Theoretical Issues and Research, Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY, pp. 59-80.Google Scholar
  20. Komorita, S. S., and Parks, C. D. (1994). Social Dilemmas, Brown & Benchmark, Dubuque, IA.Google Scholar
  21. Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50: 569-598.Google Scholar
  22. Kramer, R. M., and Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46: 1044-1057.Google Scholar
  23. Kramer, R. M., Brewer, M. B., and Hanna, B. A. (1996). Collective trust and collective action: The decision to trust as a social decision. In: Kramer, R. M., and Tyler, T. R. (eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage, Thousands Oaks, pp. 357-389.Google Scholar
  24. Kramer, R. M., and Goldman, L. (1995). Helping the group or helping yourself? Social motives and group identity in resource dilemmas. In: Schroeder, D. A. (ed.), Social Dilemmas: Perspectives on Individuals and Groups, Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 49-68.Google Scholar
  25. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., and Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manage. Rev. 20: 709-734.Google Scholar
  26. McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad. Manage. J. 38: 24-59.Google Scholar
  27. Olson, M. (1965). The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  28. Parks, C. D. (1994). The predictive ability of social values in resource dilemmas and public goods games. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 20: 431-438.Google Scholar
  29. Parks, C. D., and Hulbert, L. G. (1995). High and low trusters' responses to fear in a payoff matrix. J. Conflict Resolut. 39: 718-730.Google Scholar
  30. Platt, J. (1973). Social traps. Am. Psychol. 28: 641-651.Google Scholar
  31. Pruitt, D. G., and Kimmel, M. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and suggestions for the future. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 28: 363-392.Google Scholar
  32. Ring, P. S., and van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Development processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Acad. Manage. Rev. 19: 90-118.Google Scholar
  33. Rutte, C., and Wilke, H. A. M. (1992). Goals, expectations and behavior in a social dilemma situation. In: Liebrand, W. B. G., Messick, D. M., and Wilke, H. A. M. (eds.), Social Dilemmas: Theoretical Issues and Research, Pergamon Press, Elmsford, NY, pp. 289-305.Google Scholar
  34. Schelling, T. C. (1960). The Strategy of Conflict, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, E., Coats, S., and Walling, D. (1999). Overlapping mental representations of self, in-group, and partner: Further response time evidence and a connectionist model. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 25: 873-882.Google Scholar
  36. Yamagishi, T. (1986). The provision of a sanctioning system as public good. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51: 110-116.Google Scholar
  37. Yamagishi, T., and Sato, K. (1986). Motivational bases of the public goods problem. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50: 67-73.Google Scholar
  38. Wilke, H. A. M., and Braspenning, J. (1989). Reciprocity: Choice shift in a social trap. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 19: 317-326.Google Scholar
  39. Wit, A. P., and Kerr, N. L. (2002). Me versus just us versus us all: Categorization and cooperation in nested social dilemmas. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83: 616-637.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Experimental PsychologyMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations