Advertisement

Social Values and Cooperation. Results from an Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma Experiment.

  • Jürgen Fleiß
  • Ulrike Leopold-Wildburger
Conference paper
Part of the Operations Research Proceedings book series (ORP)

Abstract

The following article deals with the question of cooperation in dilemma situations. We ran an iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma experiment and measured the players social value orientation using the Ring Measure of Social Value. We then analyze the players behavior in the Prisoner’s Dilemma in relation to their social value orientation to test the hypotheses that prosocial players are more likely to cooperate. We find evidence that this is indeed the case. We do not find evidence that if two prosocial players interact with each other they achieve higher cooperation rates than two proself players or one prosocial and one proself player.

Keywords

Player Behavior Social Dilemma Ring Measure Standard Economic Theory Dilemma Situation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Balliet D, Parks C, Joireman J. Social Value Orientation and Cooperation in Soical Dilemmas: A Meta-Analysis. Group Processes Ingroup Relations. 2009. doi: 10.1177/1368430209105040.
  2. 2.
    De Cremer D, Van Lange PAM. Why Prosocials Exhibit Greater Cooperation than Proselfs: The Roles of Social Responsibility and Reciprocity. Eur. J. Pers.. 2001;15:5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Doli D. Statistik mit R. Oldenbourg, Munich/Vienna: Einfhrung fr Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftler; 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grling T. Value Priorities, social value orientations and cooperation in social dilemmas. British Journal of Social Psychology. 1999;38:397–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hulbert, L.G., Corrła da Silva, M.L., Adegboyegy, G.: Cooperation in social dilemmas and allocentrism: a scial value approach. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 31, 641-657 (2001).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liebrand, W.B.G, McClintock, C.G.: The ring measure of social values: a computerized procedure for assessing individual differences in information processing and social value orientation. European Journal of Personality 2, 217-230 (1988).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Offerman T, Sonnemans J, Schram A. Value Orientations. Expectations and Voluntary Contributions in Public Goods. The Economic Journal. 1996;106:817–845.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simpson B. Social Values, Subjective Transformations, and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas. Social Psychology Quarterly. 2004;67:385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Lange PAM. On perceiving morality and potency: Social values and the effects of person perception in a give-some dilemma. European Journal of Personality. 1989;3:209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Lange, P.A.M., Liebrand, W.B.G., The Influence of Other’s Morality and Own Social Value Orientation on Cooperation in The Netherlands and the U.S.A. International Journal of Psychology 26, 429-449 (1991).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Lange PAM. The Persuit of Joint Outcomes and Equality in Outcomes: An Integrative Model of Social Value Orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999;2:337–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weber JM. Suckers or Saviors? Consistent Contributors in Social Dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008;95:1340–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Statistics and Operations ResarchUniversity of GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations