This article investigates how justification pressures influence harvesting decisions in common resource dilemmas. The authors argue that when a division rule prescribes a specific harvest level, such as under environmental certainty, people adhere more strongly to this division rule when they have to justify their decisions to fellow group members. When a division rule does not prescribe a specific harvest level, such as under environmental uncertainty, people restrict their harvests when they have to justify their decisions to fellow group members. The results of two experimental studies corroborate this line of reasoning. The findings are discussed in terms of tacit coordination. The authors specify conditions under which justification pressures may or may not facilitate efficient coordination.
Allison, S.T., McQueen, L.R., & Schaerfl, L.M. (1992). Social decision making processes and the equal partitionment of shared resources. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 23-42.
2.
Budescu, D.V., Rapoport, A., & Suleiman, R. (1990). Resource dilemmas with environmental uncertainty and asymmetric players. European Journal of Social Psychology , 20, 475-487.
3.
Croson, R., & Marks, M. (1998). Identifiability of individual contributions in a threshold public goods experiment. Journal of MathematicalPsychology, 42, 167-190.
4.
De Cremer, D. (2003). How self-conception may lead to inequality: Effect of hierarchical roles on the equality rule in organizational resource-sharing tasks. Group and Organization Management, 28, 282-302.
5.
De Cremer, D., & Bakker, M. (2003). Accountability and cooperation in social dilemmas: The influence of others' reputational concerns. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 22, 155-163.
6.
De Cremer, D., Snyder, M., & Dewitte, S. (2001). “The less I trust, the less I contribute (or not)?” The effects of trust, accountability and self-monitoring in social dilemmas. European Journal of Social Psychology , 31, 93-107.
7.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Koole, S., & Steinel, W. (2000). Unfixing the fixed-pie: A motivated information-processing account of integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 975-987.
8.
De Dreu, C.K.W., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2005). The possessive self as a barrier to conflict resolution: Effects of mere ownership, process accountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 345-357.
9.
De Kwaadsteniet, E.W., Van Dijk, E., Wit, A.P., & De Cremer, D. (2006). Social dilemmas as strong versus weak situations: Social value orientations and tacit coordination under resource size uncertainty . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 509-516.
10.
Diekmann, K.A. (1997). “Implicit justifications” and self-serving group allocations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 3-16.
11.
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution andHuman Behavior, 25, 63-87.
12.
Fox, J., & Guyer, M. (1978). “Public” choice and cooperation in n-person prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution , 22, 469-481.
13.
Gustafsson, M., Biel, A., & Gärling, T. (1999). Over-harvesting of resources of unknown size. Acta Psychologica, 103, 47-64.
14.
Jerdee, T.H., & Rosen, B. (1974). Effects of opportunity to communicate and visibility of individual decisions on behavior in the common interest. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 712-716.
15.
Kerr, N.L. (1995). Norms in social dilemmas. In D. Schroeder (Ed.), Social dilemmas: Perspectives on individuals and groups (pp. 31-47). Westport, CT: Praeger.
16.
Kerr, N.L. (1999). Anonymity and social control in social dilemmas . In M. Foddy, M. Smithson, S. Schneider, & M. Hogg (Eds.), Resolving social dilemmas: Dynamic, structural, and intergroup aspects (pp. 103-118). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Lerner, J.S., & Tetlock, P.E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin,125, 255-275.
19.
Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variances. In I. Olkin, S. G. Ghurye, W. Hoeffding, W. G. Madow, & H. B. Mann (Eds.), Contributions to probability and statistics: Essays in honor of Harold Hotelling (pp. 278-292). Stanford, CA : Stanford University Press.
20.
Messick, D.M. (1993). Equality as a decision heuristic. In B. A. Mellers & J. Baron (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on justice (pp. 11-31). New York: Cambridge University Press.
21.
Messick, D.M., Allison, S.T., & Samuelson, C.D. (1988). Framing and communication effects on group members' responses to environmental and social uncertainty . In S. Maital (Ed.), Applied behavioral economics (Vol. 2, pp. 677-700). New York: New York University Press.
22.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Rapoport A., Budescu, D.V., Suleiman, R., & Weg, E. (1992). Social dilemmas with uniformly distributed resources . In W. B. G. Liebrand & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 43-57). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
24.
Reis, H.T., & Gruzen, J. (1976). On mediating equity, equality, and self-interest: The role of self-presentation in social exchange. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 487-503.
25.
Rosenthal, J.A. (1996). Qualitative descriptors of strength of association and effect size. Journal of Social Service Research, 21, 4, 37-59.
26.
Rutte, C.G., Wilke, H.A.M., & Messick, D.M. (1987). Scarcity or abundance caused by people or the environment as determinants of behavior in a resource dilemma. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 209-216.
27.
Schelling, T.C. (1980). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
28.
Scholten, L., Van Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B.A., & De Dreu, C.K.W. (in press). Motivated information processing and group decision-making: Effects of process accountability on information processing and decision quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.
29.
Sedikides, C., Herbst, K.C., Hardin, D.P., & Dardis, G.J. (2002). Accountability as a deterrent to self-enhancement: The search for mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 592-605.
30.
Tenbrunsel, A.E. (1995). Justifying unethical behavior: The role of expectations of others' behavior and uncertainty (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 2768.
31.
Tetlock, P.E. (1992). The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 331-376). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
32.
Tetlock, P.E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 388-398.
33.
Tetlock, P.E., & Boettger, R. (1994). Accountability amplifies the status quo effect when change creates victims. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 1-23.
34.
Tetlock, P.E., Skitka, L., & Boettger, R. (1989). Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 632-640.
35.
Van Dijk, E., & Wilke, H. (1995). Coordination rules in asymmetric social dilemmas: A comparison between public good dilemmas and resource dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 1-16.
36.
Van Dijk, E., Wit, A., Wilke, H., & Budescu, D. V. (2004). What we know (and do not know) about the effects of uncertainty on behavior in social dilemmas. In R. Suleiman, D. Budescu, I. Fisher, & D. Messick (Eds.), Contemporary psychological research on social dilemmas (pp. 315-331). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
Weber, E.U., Blais, A.R., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263-290.
38.
Weber, J.M., Kopelman, S., & Messick, D.M. (2004). A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 281-307.
39.
Wit, A.P., & Wilke, H.A.M. (1998). Public good provision under environmental and social uncertainty. European Journal of Social Psychology , 28, 249-256.
