Group Discussion and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas

Abstract

Face-to-face discussion has been shown to increase cooperative behavior in social dilemmas. Two general explanations of this effect were tested: group identity (concern for fellow group members' outcomes) and perception of consensus (degree of agreement perceived among group members on how to respond to the dilemma). Undergraduate students participated in four person groups in one of four experimental conditions. The four conditions differed in common fate (interdependent outcome in a lottery), face-to-face discussion of the dilemma, discussion of an important (irrelevant) issue, and no discussion (control). Results indicate that (a) the common fate manipulation neither aroused group identity nor enhanced cooperation, (b) group identity may not be sufficient to elicit cooperation in a social dilemma, and (c) the most plausible explanation of group discussion effects is members' perceived consensus to cooperate.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Au, W. T. (1995). The effects of group identity and commitment on discussion-induced cooperation. Unpublished master's -thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Braver, S. L. , & Wilson, L. A. (1986). Choices in social dilemmas: Effects of communication within subgroups. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30, 51-62.

Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.

Brewer, M. B. , & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 543-549.

Chen, X. (1996). The group-based binding pledge as a solution to the public goods problem. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 192-202.

Chen, X. , & Komorita, S. S. (1994). The effects of communication and commitment in a public goods social dilemma. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 367-386.

Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169-193.

Dawes, R. M. , McTavish, J. , & Shaklee, H. (1977). Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people's behavior in a commons dilemma situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 1-11.

Hinkle, S. , Taylor, L. , Fox-Cardamone, D. L. , & Crook, K. (1989). Intragroup identification and intergroup differentiation: A multicomponent approach. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 305-317.

10.

Hogg, M. A. , & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identification: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. New York: Routledge.

11.

Kelly, C. (1988). Intergroup differentiation in apolitical context. British Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 319-332.

12.

Kerr, N. L. , & Kaufman-Gilliland, C. M. (1994). Communication, commitment, and cooperation in social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 513-529.

13.

Komorita, S. S. , & Parks, C. D. (1995). Interpersonal relations: Mixed-motive interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 183-207.

14.

Kramer, R. M. , & Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044-1057.

15.

Orbell, J. M. , van de Kragt, A. , & Dawes, R. M. (1988). Explaining discussion-induced cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 811-819.

16.

Pruitt, D. G. , & Kimmel, M. J. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and suggestions for the future. Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 363-392.

17.

Rabbie, J. M. (1982). The effects of intergroup competition and cooperation on intragroup and intergroup relationships. In V. J. Derlega & J. Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and helping behavior: Theories and research (pp. 128-151). New York: Academic Press.

18.

Tajfel, H. , & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

19.

Turner, J. C. (1978). Social categorization and social discrimination in the minimal group paradigm. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups. London: Academic Press.

20.

Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2), pp. 77-122. Greenwich, CT:JAI.

21.

van de Kragt, A. J. C. , Orbell, J. M. , & Dawes, R. M. (1983). The minimal contributing set as a solution to public goods problems. American Political Science Review, 77, 112-122.

22.

van Lange, P. A. M. , Liebrand, W. B. G. , Messick, D. M. , & Wilke, H. A. M. (1992). Introduction and literature review. In W. Liebrand , D. Messick , & H. Wilke (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings. New York: Pergamon.