Collective-Goal Ascription Increases Cooperation in Humans

Abstract

BackgroundCooperation is necessary in many types of human joint activity and relations. Evidence suggests that cooperation has direct and indirect benefits for the cooperators. Given how beneficial cooperation is overall, it seems relevant to investigate the various ways of enhancing individuals' willingness to invest in cooperative endeavors. We studied whether ascription of a transparent collective goal in a joint action promotes cooperation in a group.MethodsA total of 48 participants were assigned in teams of 4 individuals to either a “transparent goal-ascription” or an “opaque goal-ascription” condition. After the manipulation, the participants played an anonymous public goods game with another member of their team. We measured the willingness of participants to cooperate and their expectations about the other player's contribution.ResultsBetween subjects analyses showed that transparent goal ascription impacts participants' likelihood to cooperate with each other in the future, thereby greatly increasing the benefits from social interactions. Further analysis showed that this could be explained with a change in expectations about the partner's behavior and by an emotional alignment of the participants.ConclusionThe study found that a transparent goal ascription is associated with an increase of cooperation. We propose several high-level mechanisms that could explain the observed effect: general affect modulation, trust, expectation and perception of collective efficacy.

Beyond Synchrony: Joint Action in a Complex Production Task Reveals Beneficial Effects of Decreased Interpersonal Synchrony

“…Although we have discussed some exceptions above [13–15], it is noteworthy that the majority of studies that have demonstrated positive effects of synchrony were not outcome-oriented, but rather focused on interpersonal coordination as an end in itself [20,21]. When participating in more naturalistic tasks, people encounter considerably more coordination options permitting multiple means for achieving similar ends.…”

Team performance and collective efficacy in the dynamic psychology of competitive team: A Bayesian network analysis

“…Utilizing the collective efficacy model suggested by Beauchamp (2007) affords a systematic view of different psychological processes, emphasizing that there are several antecedents, such as leadership, motivational climate, team cohesion, previous expectative, and past performance of group size, that influence players' perception of collective efficacy levels. Moreover, these levels of collective efficacy lead to behavioral consequences, emphasizing group performance (Leo, García-Calvo, Sánchez-Miguel, & Sánchez-Oliva, 2010;Mitkidis, Sørensen, Nielbo, Andersen, & Lienard, 2013;Myers, Payment, et al, 2004;Zaccaro et al, 1995). Taking into account this model, it seems that the coach's role, through his/her leadership and behaviors, have an influence on team members (Jowett & Chaundy, 2004).…”

Does Goal-Demotion Enhance Cooperation?

“…As investigated by Pruitt and Kimmel, in order for people to effi ciently cooperate two conditions need to be satisfied: (1) a collective goal, and (2) expectations about the other's willingness to cooperate (Pruitt and Kimmel, 1977;Ariely, 2008;Mitkidis et al, 2013). In the goal-demoted condition, participants might not be able to coordinate their expectations with the oth ers' , since there was no obvious cooperative end-state to their contribution.…”