Small Wins: Perceptual Focus, Efficacy, and Cooperation in a Stage‐Conjunctive Social Dilemma¹

Abstract

A multi-stage social dilemma was used to explore the notion that focusing on part rather than all of a complex problem would affect self-efficacy and action. In two experiments subjects considered a multi-stage game asking them to invest an initial sum of money in hopes of earning a larger bonus to be paid if provision points were met at all stages (a "stage-conjunctive'' task). Results indicated that under most conditions considered, presentation of the whole problem encouraged cooperation. The opposite pattern occurred when group members were asked to complete very demanding stages first. We suggest that these results depend strongly on the stageconjunctive nature of our task.

Marketing and the Tragedy of the Commons: A Synthesis, Commentary, and Analysis for Action

“…Kinnear, Taylor, and Ahmed 1974). Much of the previously cited psychology literature clearly indicates that focused efforts and increased self-efficacy enhance commons-friendly activities (Kaufman and Kerr 1993), and recent field studies concur (Bromley 1992). Studies on consumers per se indicate similar conclusions (Ellen, Wiener, and Cobb-Walgren 1991).…”

Testing the Waters: Using Collective Real Options to Manage the Social Dilemma of Strategic Alliances.

“…Further, alliance partners typically believe themselves to be more honest and more cooperative (i.e., more trustworthy) than others, which also fuels suspicion of others and, hence, defensive defection (Epley, Caruso, & Bazerman, 2006). Indeed, re- (Kaufman & Kerr, 1993;Kollock, 1998). The co-opetition paradigm (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1996) and integrative negotiation paradigm (Hoffman et al, 1999) assume that cooperation (or creating value) is independent of defection (or claiming value): individuals acting in their own selfinterests can lead to an outcome that is in everyone's best interests.…”

Efficacy = endowment × efficiency: Revisiting efficacy and endowment effects in a public goods dilemma.

“…We see a parallel in the effects and theoretical rationales of efficacy and endowment from the experimental manipulations of these two variables. In efficacy studies, researchers have typically manipulated efficacy by varying group size (e.g., Kerr, 1989; Seijts & Latham, 2000), provision point (e.g., Kaufman & Kerr, 1993), or the impact (e.g., investment value) of the endowment on the PG (e.g., Kerr, 1992). No matter which manipulation is used, the fundamental idea is that everyone has the same endowment, but the impact of the endowment on the PG is different.…”