Preferences and Cognitive Processes in Interdependence Situations: A Theoretical Analysis of Cooperation

Grzelak, Janusz

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-210820-4.50010-1

Cited by 34 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This model is a special case of the models discussed by Grzelak (1982) and Radzicki (1976) and it is very similar to the bivariate utility model developed by Conrath and Deci (1969) who regrettably presented no data bearing on the model's validity.…”

Section: M Messick and K P Sentismentioning

confidence: 84%

“…One of the earliest studies of social preferences (Sawyer, 1966) used a ranking procedure, but since that time preference rankings have been used only by the Warsaw group (Grzelak, 1982;Grzelak, Iwinski and Radzicki, 1977;Radzicki, 1976) to the best of our knowledge. The work of these investigators is very encouraging from the measurement standpoint.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The work of these investigators is very encouraging from the measurement standpoint. Grzelak (1982), for example, states that a utility function consisting of three additive components, own gain, other's gain, and the difference between the first two, is sufficient to fit the rankings of 80 per cent to 90 per cent of their subjects. While the details of their experimental contexts and stimulus sets are quite different from those used in the present study, their results support ours in indicating that ranking tasks can identify a limited set of psychologically meaningful dimensions that underly complex preference patterns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Proposals for such utility functions have been made by Sawyer (1966), Messick and McClintock (1968), Griesinger and Livingston (1973), MacCrimmon and Messick (1976), Conrath and Deci (1969), Radzicki (1976), Grzelak (1982), Zajonc (1982), and Scott (1972) in different contexts and for different kinds of tasks. However, some of the proposals include little in the way of advice about how to estimate such functions (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Estimating social and nonsocial utility functions from ordinal data

Messick

Sentis

1985

Euro J Social Psych

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: M Messick and K P Sentismentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Estimating social and nonsocial utility functions from ordinal data

Messick

Sentis

1985

Euro J Social Psych

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…McClintock, 1972), in the current research we focus on an empirically established typology that distinguishes between three broad groups of orientation: cooperation, individualism, and competition (e.g., Grzelak, 1982;Kramer, McClintock, & Messick, 1986;Kuhlman & Wimberley, 1976;Liebrand & Van Run, 1985;Van Lange & Kuhlman, 1994). Individuals with cooperative or prosocial orientation tend to maximize the well-being of both self and others and to minimize differences between the well-being of self and others (i.e., they attend to the goodness of joint outcomes and to equality in outcomes); individualists tend to maximize their own well-being with little or no regard for the well-being of others (i.e., they attend to the goodness of their own outcomes); and competitors tend to maximize their own well-being in relation to the wellbeing of others (i.e., they attend to the goodness of relative outcomes).…”

Section: Relationship-based Transformationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

From game theory to real life: How social value orientation affects willingness to sacrifice in ongoing close relationships.

Lange¹,

Agnew²,

Harinck³

et al. 1997

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

217

201

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research adopted an interdependence analysis of sacrifice, examining the link between commitment (i.e., the subjective experience of dependence and long-term orientation) and willingness to sacrifice in ongoing close relationships, and determining whether this link is moderated by preexisting individual differences in social value orientation (i.e., prosocial, individualistic, or competitive orientation). Consistent with hypotheses, results of 2 studies revealed both that willingness to sacrifice was associated with greater commitment and that this link was more pronounced among individualists than among prosocials. Results also revealed an association between one's own willingness to sacrifice and beliefs regarding the partner's willingness to sacrifice (this link was somewhat more pronounced among prosocials than among individualists) and one's own willingness to sacrifice and actual partner's willingness to sacrifice.

show abstract

Walking through interaction. Comments on Harold H. Kelley's: ‘Expanding the analysis of social interactions by reference to the sequential-temporal structures of situations’

Grzelak¹

1997

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kelley proposes to analyse social orientations in terms of decision making. Social orientations are defined by classes of decision rules which an individual adopts when entering and developing an interaction with another person. Contrary to the most traditional approach, outcome allocation decisions are only an element of a chain of decisions made by the individual. The new theory broadens our view of interactions, draws our attention to their complexity and their dynamics. On the other hand, Kelley's man behaves as if he or she processed information in a systematic way, perceived longterm outcomes and as if he or she controlled the interaction to achieve desirable outcomes. The vision of man as an internally consistent decision-maker is questionable. Many choices made in interaction with others are spontaneous and emotion driven rather than a result of deliberate information processing. Kelley's theory offers a highly sophisticated tool for a temporal analysis of social interactions even though it cannot be applied to the entire spectrum of interdependence situations.

show abstract

Preferences and Cognitive Processes in Interdependence Situations: A Theoretical Analysis of Cooperation

Cited by 34 publications

References 11 publications

Estimating social and nonsocial utility functions from ordinal data

Estimating social and nonsocial utility functions from ordinal data

From game theory to real life: How social value orientation affects willingness to sacrifice in ongoing close relationships.

Walking through interaction. Comments on Harold H. Kelley's: ‘Expanding the analysis of social interactions by reference to the sequential-temporal structures of situations’

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About