Week 2- Social Dilemma's

Question 1

What is a Social Dilemma? (Wit & Kerr, 2002)

Answer 1

A conflict between individual (private) and collective interests

Question 2

The article from Wit & Kerr 2002 Talks about a situation where individuals must choose between only two options. How is this dilemma called and what are the 2 options?

Answer 2

Simple generic social dilemma
1) Noncooperative (defecting, D)
2) Cooperative (C)

Question 3

What is the impact of highlighting an individual’s common category membership on their commitment to the well-being of that category? (Wit & Kerr, 2002)

Answer 3

It increases

Question 4

How are decisions about the allocation of resources often perceived in terms of subgroups? (Wit & Kerr, 2002)

Answer 4

In terms of how these decisions affect the individual’s own subgroup compared with other subgroups.

Question 5

In the context of goal transformation, what is the impact of perceiving oneself as part of a common category on one’s concerns for the welfare of others? (Wit & Kerr, 2002)

Answer 5

Individuals perceive themselves as belonging to a common category or group become more concerned with the well-being of others in that category compared to those who primarily view themselves as individuals.

Question 6

Goal amplification (Wit & Kerr, 2002)

Answer 6

Cooperative expectations may further promote one’s own willingness to cooperate

Question 7

How can cooperative expectations affect the behavior of (sub)group members? (there are 3)

Answer 7

1. They may feel pressure to conform to the perceived cooperative norms within their group.
2. They become more trusting of others in their group and are more willing to cooperate with them.
3. They feel an obligation to reciprocate beneficial actions by fellow (sub)group members.

Question 8

How can salient social categorization influence people’s behavior when it comes to cooperation within a group? (Wit & Kerr, 2002)

Answer 8

by making them more attentive to their group’s expectations and norms, thus increasing their willingness to cooperate within their specific category. This can lead to more cooperative behavior and less emphasis on individual interests.

Question 9

Wit & Kerr (2002) What is the difference between proself value orientation and prosocial value orientation, and how does this affect how people respond to salient social categorization?

Answer 9

proself value orientation: preference for maximizing one’s personal outcomes,

prosocial value orientation: striving to maximize joint outcomes and focusing more on the well-being of the group as a whole.

Salient social categorization has a stronger impact on cooperation for individuals with a proself value orientation than for those with a prosocial value orientation.

Question 10

Which 3 basic levels of categorization are describes by Wit & Kerr? (2002)

Answer 10

• Individual
• Subgroup
• Collective

Question 11

Wit & Kerr (2002) Define Individualisation

Answer 11

That participants pay attention to the unique characteristics, personalities, and needs of individual members within their own subgroup and within the opposing subgroup.

Question 12

What is the effect of increasing the saliency of categorization of a specific level in a hierarchy by subtly and temporarily linking the fates of members at that level?

Answer 12

It increases group members’ willingness to allocate resources to that level of interest.

Question 13

What does the nonmonotonic (not-linearity) of the relationship between the emphasized level of categorization and concern for the collective well-being mean? (Wit & Kerr, 2002)

Answer 13

It means that group members’ willingness to contribute to the collective interest varies in a non-linear manner, depending on how fate is shared within the group.

Question 14

(Wit & Kerr, 2002) What happens to concern for the collective interest in subgroup categorization?

Answer 14

Low concern for the collective interest is often accompanied by high concern for both one’s own subgroup interest and one’s private interest.

Question 15

How can the low concern for the collective interest in subgroup categorization be remedied? (Wit & Kerr, 2002)

Answer 15

1) Individuating members of individual’s own subgroup
2) Individuating members of opposing subgroup
3) Shared fate with members of opposing subgroup

Question 16

Which author did research about The Paradox of sanctioning systems in social dilemma’s?

Answer 16

Mulder et al., 2006

Question 17

What does the study by Mulder et al. (2006) say about the effects of financial incentives on moral behavior?

Answer 17

It undermines the moral underpinning of that behavior - it transforms norm violations into a market transaction

Question 18

What does Mulder et al., (2006) mean when saying that sanctions affect cognitions within individuals?

Answer 18

That the sanction influences the way an individual thinks about their behavior

Question 19

How does Mulder et al., (2006) defines social dilemma?

Answer 19

Interdependent relations in which people’s outcomes are not only affected by their owqn decisions , but also by the decisions of other people

Question 20

How does knowing that others will be punished if they defect affect cooperation in a social dilemma? (Mulder et al., 2006)

Answer 20

Knowing that others will be punished if they defect results in more confidence that they will cooperate.

Question 21

What does the research of Mulder et al., (2006) say is the general effect of a sanction on the level of trust in others who are internally motivated to cooperate?

Answer 21

A sanction is detrimental to the level of trust in others who are internally motivated to cooperate, and even if the initial level of trust is already low, a sanctioning system can further decrease trust.

Question 22

What are the 2 possible timing options to sanction certain behavior? (Molenmaker et al., 2019)

Answer 22

before the behavior occurs, as a preventive measure;
or after the behavior has taken place, as a reaction to what has happened.

Question 23

Why do we need sanctioningsystems? (Molenmaker et al., 2019)

Answer 23

To increase the atractiveness to cooperate in groups

Question 24

What is nonconsequential reasoning in uncertain situations? (Molenmaker., 2016)

Answer 24

In uncertain situations, people sometimes make decisions that don’t necessarily align with what they would choose if they were considering the expected outcomes or consequences of their choices.

Question 25

Why do uncertain situations often lead to a loss of clarity and a discounting of uncertain information? (Molenmakeret al., 2016)

Answer 25

Because fully analyzing and considering the reasons and implications of all possible courses of action can be cognitively and motivationally demanding.

Question 26

What is the strategy method in decision-making? Molenmaker et al., (2016)

Answer 26

Involves creating precompiled strategies for responding to all possible choices others might make.

Question 27

What is the direct-response method in decision-making? (Molenmaker., 2016)

Answer 27

The direct-response method requires individuals to respond only to the actual choices made by others, without preplanning for all possible scenarios.

Question 28

How do emotions relate to the use of sanctions in decision-making? (Molenmaker., 2016)

Answer 28

Emotions are an important directly/proximately mechanism underlying the willingness to use sanctions, and they are more likely to emerge in direct response to the behavior of others, rather than when employing a precompiled strategy in the strategy method.

Question 29

What is the difference in people’s willingness to use costly sanctions when deciding beforehand compared to deciding afterward? (Molenmaker et al., 2016)

Answer 29

People are less willing to employ costly sanctions when deciding beforehand than when deciding afterward.

Question 30

How does the presence of uncertainty about outcomes affect decision-making (Molenmaker., 2016)

Answer 30

It can induce nonconsequential reasoning and hinder decisiveness.

Question 31

Are people more willing to administer sanctions based on others’ future behavior or based on others’ past behavior? (Molenmaker et al., 2016)

Answer 31

People are less willing to administer sanctions that are contingent on others’ future behavior than on others’ behavior that did actually occur in the past.

Question 32

What was observed in the research of Molenmaker et al., (2016) when decisions were made before the occurrence of others’ behavior, regardless of whether they were made directly afterward or with a time delay?

Answer 32

People sanctioned others less often and more mildly when decisions were made before (instead of after) the occurrence of others’ behavior

Question 33

What is the disjunction effect in decision-making? (Molenmaker., 2016)

Answer 33

It just hinders individuals in making a choice