The effect of social motives, communication and group size on behaviour in an N‐person multi‐stage mixed‐motive game

Liebrand, Wim B. G.

doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420140302

Cited by 363 publications

(340 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

315

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, for situations in which the total benefit is fixed-such as in a dictator game (Camerer and Thaler 1995)-a concern for the total benefit is irrelevant, and concern for the other's benefit should play the major role. As a result, people should take less from close others (Liebrand 1984). However, for situations in which the total benefit is not fixed and taking increases the total benefit, concern for the total benefit should prompt increased taking from close others.…”

Section: When Closeness Decreases Versus Increases Takingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

Tu¹,

Shaw²,

Fishbach³

2015

J Consum Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research documents "the friendly taking effect" in choosing consumption packages for the self and others, interpersonal closeness leads to a preference for a self-benefiting package when this package also offers greater total benefit to the self-other collective (studies 1 and 2). We propose that a friendly intention (i.e., concern for the total benefit) underlies the friendly taking effect; therefore, people both take more from and give more to a close (vs. distant) other when doing so offers greater benefits in total (study 3), and people are cognitively tuned in to (e.g., acquire, remember) information about the total benefit more when choosing a package for themselves and a close (vs. distant) other (study 4). Moreover, the importance people place on the total benefit mediates the impact of closeness on people's preference for self-benefiting packages (study 5). We explore boundary conditions (study 6) and implications for marketers of consumption packages (study 7).

show abstract

Section: When Closeness Decreases Versus Increases Takingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

Tu¹,

Shaw²,

Fishbach³

2015

J Consum Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only one previous study (Liebrand, 1984) reported an effect of social motives on choice behavior in an n-person game and that study used only one measurement technique in one location. The present study can be regarded as an extension of the Liebrand (1984) study. It is expected that the amount of money taken for self in the Sequence Dilemma is least for altruists, next lowest for cooperators, higher yet for individualists and greatest for competitors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of social motives on behavior in social dilemmas in two cultures

Liebrand

Run

1985

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

142

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subjects in Santa Barbara, California, and Groningen, The Netherlands, participated in a seven-person social dilemma game, presented in terms of a conservation of resources problem. Prior to their decision making in the social dilemma game, subject's social motive (altruistic, cooperative, individualistic, competitive) was assessed by means of two different classification procedures. On the basis of previous research findings American subjects were expected to display relatively more competitive social motives, and Dutch subjects relatively more cooperative ones. However, no indications of crosscultural differences were found neither with regard to the distribution of social motives nor with regard to the amount of resources taken for self in the social dilemma game. In both locations, competitive subjects took most resources for self, individualistic subjects took next most, cooperative subjects took less than individualists, and altruistic subjects took the least. In addition to predictive validity, indices of the convergent validity of two social motive assessment procedures were described.

show abstract

“…In the first experiment, the decomposed game technique (Liebrand, 1984;Offerman et al, 1996;Park, 2000;Brosig, 2002) was used to assess an individual's value orientations. Participants played 24 decomposed games.…”

Section: Design Of the Preference Elicitation Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To obtain information about the intrinsic social preferences of our subjects, prior to the public goods game, we measure individual "value orientation" (i.e., the weight an agent attaches to her own well-being in comparison to the others' well-being) by means of the decomposed game technique (Griesinger and Livingston, 1973;Liebrand, 1984). 6 The rest of the paper is organized as follows.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Cooperators Efficiency- or Fair-Minded? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use a two-person public goods experiment to distinguish between efficiency and fairness as possible motivations for cooperative behavior. Asymmetric marginal per capita returns allow only the high-productivity player to increase group payoffs when contributing positive amounts. Asymmetric contributions, however, yield unequal individual payoffs. To assess a priori cooperative preferences, we measure individual 'value-orientations' by means of the decomposed game technique. Overall, our results indicate that fairness (or inequality aversion) is more influential than efficiency in driving behavior.

show abstract

The effect of social motives, communication and group size on behaviour in an N‐person multi‐stage mixed‐motive game

Abstract: Two experiments investigated the impact of social motives or individuals' preferences for specific self-other outcome distributions, on behaviour in an n-person game. Subjects' social motives (altruistic, cooperative, individualistic, competitive)

Cited by 363 publications

References 35 publications

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

The Friendly Taking Effect: How Interpersonal Closeness Leads to Seemingly Selfish Yet Jointly Maximizing Choice

The effects of social motives on behavior in social dilemmas in two cultures

Are Cooperators Efficiency- or Fair-Minded? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About