Effect of risk orientation on cooperation and decision process in public goods dilemma

Fung, Jane M. Y.; Au, Wing Tung; Hu, Weipeng; Shi, Kun

doi:10.1177/1368430212448443

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with the literature (Fung et al, ; Hilbig & Zettler, ), SVO was positively associated with the likelihood of choosing the joint welfare‐maximizing option. However, it is important to note that the impact of individual differences on social decisions depended on the situation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…SVO reflects the weight individuals assign to the consequences that an interpersonal decision has for themselves and others (Van Lange et al, ). High SVO (i.e., a stronger prosocial orientation) is positively related to choices that maximize joint outcomes, whereas low SVO is associated with choices that maximize personal payoffs (Balliet, Parks, & Joireman, ; Baumert, Schlösser, & Schmitt, ; Fung, Au, Hu, & Shi, ; Hilbig & Zettler, ; McClintock & Allison, ). Furthermore, prosocial individuals are more likely to volunteer time for a collective good than selfish or competitive types (McClintock & Allison, ; Van Lange, Schippers, & Balliet, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Self‐interest or joint welfare? Person and situation factors in interpersonal decisions about time

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When individuals work together on a project, they have to decide how much time they should invest in the task, and importantly, how much to invest relative to others. For example, say Tim and Tom are working together and Tim is more proficient at the task than Tom.Tim knows that if he works for 2 hr, Tom will have to work for 1 hr.However, Tom will have contributed only 1 hr, which will be 1 hr less than Tim will have contributed. Alternatively, Tim could work for 1.5 hr to finish the task and then Tom would have to work for 2.2 hr.Thus, Tim faces a decision between two options: In order to finish the task, (a) he can work for 2 hr and Tom can work for 1 hr, a joint welfare-maximizing option or (b) he can work for 1.5 hr and Tom can work for 2.2 hr, a selfish option. Option A maximizes the joint payoff by minimizing the joint effort but the option also results in more work for Tim and disadvantageous inequality regarding his individual effort in comparison with Tom's. Option B maximizes Tim's payoff by minimizing his individual effort. However, the inequality of effort is lower for Option B than for Option A. Would Tim be willing to use his proficiency advantage to maximize their joint welfare by choosing Option A, or would he favor self-interest by choosing Option B?The decision about how to allocate time in an interpersonal task represents an interpersonal decision because it has consequences for the decision maker and at least one other personThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri butio n-NonCo mmerc ial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. AbstractWhile previous research on interpersonal decisions has focused on individual differences or situational determinants, in this paper, we looked at the interplay of situation and personality in decisions that are characterized by a conflict between self-interest and joint welfare. In an online experiment, 185 participants made decisions about the allocation of their own work time and the work time of another anonymous participant. Agency and uncertainty were manipulated between subjects, and social value orientation as well as dispositional envy were assessed. Participants chose between an option that maximized participants' joint welfare and an option that maximized personal payoffs. The results pointed to an interaction between personality and situational forces: Uncertainty moderated the effect of social value orientation, and agency moderated the effect of envy on decisions. Taken together, the results provide evidence that the effect of individual differences in interpersonal decisions depends on the situation. Implications for team work are discussed in situations where a group potentially benefits disproportionally more from an individual's relatively higher effort than the individual who exerts the effort.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐interest or joint welfare? Person and situation factors in interpersonal decisions about time

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The measures collected in the present study do not represent an exhaustive list of measures potentially related to real-world altruism. Although we did not pre-register these measures, they were selected to be as comprehensive as possible (the six-factor inventory) and to capture variables consistently linked to altruism in prior research, including Agreeableness 8 (again noting that the HEXACO agreeableness scale is not identical to five-factor inventory versions of this scale), Honesty-Humility 20 , 54 , risk sensitivity 81 , empathy 11 , 12 , social discounting 19 , and psychopathy 19 . We analyzed the data using multiple strategies for the sake of openness, replicability, transparency, and robustness of findings (and all data and code are available on the Open Science Framework for reproducibility).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unselfish traits and social decision-making patterns characterize six populations of real-world extraordinary altruists

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acts of extraordinary, costly altruism, in which significant risks or costs are assumed to benefit strangers, have long represented a motivational puzzle. But the features that consistently distinguish individuals who engage in such acts have not been identified. We assess six groups of real-world extraordinary altruists who had performed costly or risky and normatively rare (<0.00005% per capita) altruistic acts: heroic rescues, non-directed and directed kidney donations, liver donations, marrow or hematopoietic stem cell donations, and humanitarian aid work. Here, we show that the features that best distinguish altruists from controls are traits and decision-making patterns indicating unusually high valuation of others’ outcomes: high Honesty-Humility, reduced Social Discounting, and reduced Personal Distress. Two independent samples of adults who were asked what traits would characterize altruists failed to predict this pattern. These findings suggest that theories regarding self-focused motivations for altruism (e.g., self-enhancing reciprocity, reputation enhancement) alone are insufficient explanations for acts of real-world self-sacrifice.

show abstract

“…The measures collected in the present study do not represent an exhaustive list of measures potentially related to real-world altruism. Although we did not pre-register these measures, they were selected to be as comprehensive as possible (the six-factor inventory) and to capture variables consistently linked to altruism in prior research, including Agreeableness 8 (again noting that the HEXACO agreeableness scale is not identical to five-factor inventory versions of this scale), Honesty-Humility 20,53 , risk sensitivity 80 , empathy 11,12 , social discounting 19 , and psychopathy 19 . We analyzed the data using multiple strategies for the sake of openness, replicability, transparency, and robustness of findings (and all data and code are available on the Open Science Framework for reproducibility).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unselfish traits and social decision-making patterns characterize six populations of real-world extraordinary altruists

Rhoads¹,

Vekaria²,

O’Connell³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acts of extraordinary, costly altruism in which significant risks or costs are assumed to benefit strangers have long represented a motivational puzzle. But the features that consistently distinguish individuals who engage in such acts have not been identified. We conducted the first assessment of six groups of real-world extraordinary altruists who had performed costly or risky and normatively very rare (<.00005% per capita) altruistic acts: heroic rescues, non-directed and directed kidney donations, liver donations, marrow or hematopoietic stem cell donations, and humanitarian aid work. The features that best distinguished altruists from controls were traits and decision-making patterns indicating unusually high valuation of others’ outcomes: high Honesty-Humility, reduced Social Discounting, and reduced Personal Distress—results that two independent samples of adults failed to predict. Findings suggest that theories regarding self-focused motivations for altruism (e.g., self-enhancing reciprocity, reputation enhancement) alone are insufficient explanations for acts of real-world self-sacrifice.

show abstract

Effect of risk orientation on cooperation and decision process in public goods dilemma

Cited by 5 publications

References 41 publications

Self‐interest or joint welfare? Person and situation factors in interpersonal decisions about time

Self‐interest or joint welfare? Person and situation factors in interpersonal decisions about time

Unselfish traits and social decision-making patterns characterize six populations of real-world extraordinary altruists

Unselfish traits and social decision-making patterns characterize six populations of real-world extraordinary altruists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About