Role of interdependence structure, individual value orientation, and another's strategy in social decision making: A transformational analysis.

Abstract

The present research examined the influence of the objective interdependence structure of tasks, the values of decision makers, and others' strategies on social decision making and judgment. We observed that subjects' preferences among outcome alternatives that influenced both their own and another's welfare were strongly conditioned by their value orientations and by their expectations concerning the other person's choice behavior. As anticipated, there was no main effect for task structure, but structure interacted with value and with the other's strategy to influence choice behavior. Further, we observed that subjects judged others pursuing a tit-for-tat or a cooperative strategy as fairer and more honest than those pursuing a competitive strategy. They judged others pursuing a tit-for-tat strategy as more intelligent and stronger than those playing cooperatively or competitively.

Toward Value Co-Creation: Increasing Women’s Presence in Management Positions through Competition against a Set Target

“…The Task 2 consisted of an incentivized, decomposed game that tested for cooperative or non-cooperative behavior [30][31][32][33]. After this game, a third incentivized task measured attitudes to risk.…”

The egocentric nature of procedural justice: Social value orientation as moderator of reactions to decision-making procedures

“…This literature, which is rooted in the seminal work of Messick and McClintock (1968), has focused primarily on outcomes, often tangible outcomes such as money, points, and services (e.g., Eisenberger, Kuhlman, & Cotterell, 1992;Kuhlman & Marshello, 1975;McClintock & Liebrand, 1988;Parks, 1994). In fact, social value orientations are often conceptualized in terms of "outcome transformations," or preferences that take into account the outcomes for others (Kelley et al, 2003;Van Lange, 1999;Van Lange, De Cremer, Van Dijk, & Van Vugt, 2007).…”

How to overcome the detrimental effects of noise in social interaction: The benefits of generosity.

“…An example of adding generosity is a modified TFT strategy that cooperates 10% of the time that it would otherwise not cooperate. Generosity may not help reduce echo effects when the source of these effects is intentional, such as in noise-free environments simulated by Axelrod (1984) and used in many empirical studies that support the effectiveness of TFT (e.g., when the partner is competitive; Kuhlman & Marshello, 1975;McClintock & Liebrand, 1988;Van Lange & Visser, 1999). Yet when the source of the echo effect is unintentional (i.e., due to noise), generosity may in fact be quite effective in reducing the detrimental consequences of noise.…”