Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gustafsson, M.
Right arrow Articles by Gärling, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 3, No. 4, 351-365 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430200003004002
© 2000 SAGE Publications

Egoism Bias in Social Dilemmas with Resource Uncertainty

Mathias Gustafsson

Göteborg University, Sweden, Mathias.Gustafsson{at}psy.gu.se

Anders Biel

Göteborg University, Sweden

Tommy Gärling

Göteborg University, Sweden, Tommy.Garling{at}psy.gu.se

In Experiment 1 we investigated size estimates and requests from an uncertain resource in a common-pool resource dilemma. In Experiment 2, we examined contributions in a public-good dilemma with an uncertain provision threshold when participants were informed about others’ pessimistically biased estimates of the resource size or provision threshold. Supporting an individual outcome-desirability bias, but refuting a perceptual bias and an egoism bias, participants in Experiment 1 did not estimate size differently, and they cooperated more, rather than less, when they were informed about others’ estimates. Likewise, participants contributed more in Experiment 2 when they were informed about others’ estimates. These results were replicated in Experiment 3, where the outcome did not depend on others’ requests or contributions.

Key Words: outcome-desirability bias • resource uncertainty • social dilemmas

References

  • Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
  • Biel, A., & Gärling, T. (1995). The role of uncertainty in resource dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 221-233.[CrossRef]
  • Biel, A., Eek, D., & Gärling, T. (1997). Distributive justice and willingness to pay for municipality child care. Social Justice Research, 10, 63-80.
  • Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, M. R. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 543-549.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Buckley, T., & Sniezek, J. (1992). Passion, preference, and predictability in judgmental forecasting. Psychological Reports, 70, 1022.[CrossRef]
  • Budescu, D. V., & Bruderman, M. (1995). The relationship between the illusion of control and the desirability bias. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8, 109-125.
  • Budescu, D. V., Rapoport, A., & Suleiman, R. (1990). Resource dilemmas with environmental uncertainty and asymmetric players. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 475-487.
  • Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. (1994). The limits of anchoring. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 7, 223-242.
  • Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169-193.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Dawes, R. M., McTavish, J., & Shaklee, H. (1977). Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people’s behavior in a common dilemma situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 1-11.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • De Vries, S., & Wilke, H. (1992). Constrained egoism and resource management under uncertainty. In W. Liebrand, D. M. Messick, & H. Wilke (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 81-99). Oxford: Pergamon.
  • Fischer, I., & Budescu, D. V. (1995). Desirability and hindsight biases in predicting results of a multiparty election. In J.-P. Caverni, M. Bar Hillel, F. H. Barron, & H. Jungerman (Eds.), Contributions to decision making (pp. 193-211). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Gardner, R., Ostrom, E. & Walker, J. (1990) The nature of common-pool resource problems. Rationality and Society, 2, 335-358.[Abstract]
  • Gustafsson, M., Biel, A., & Gärling, T. (1999a). Outcome-desirability bias in resource management problems. Thinking and Reasoning, 5, 327-337.
  • Gustafsson, M., Biel, A., & Gärling, T. (1999b). Overharvesting of resources of unknown size. Acta Psychologica, 103, 47-67.[CrossRef]
  • Hardin, G. R. (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1990). Venture theory: A model of decision weights. Management Science, 36, 780-803.
  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 269-291.
  • Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.
  • Kerr, N. L., & Kaufman-Gilliland, C. M. (1994). Communication, commitment and cooperation in social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 513-529.[CrossRef]
  • Komorita, S. S. (1976). A model of the N-person dilemma-type game. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 357-373.[CrossRef]
  • Komorita, S. S., & Barth, J. M. (1985). Components of reward in social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 364-373.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Komorita, S. S., & Parks, C. D. (1995). Interpersonal relations: Mixed-motive interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 183-207.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Liebrand, W. B. G., Messick, D. M., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1992). Current theoretical issues. In W. Liebrand, D. M. Messick, & H. Wilke (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 29-43). Oxford: Pergamon.
  • McCusker, C., & Carnevale, P. J. (1995). Framing in resource dilemmas: Loss aversion and the moderating effects of sanctions. Organizational Behavior and Decision Processes, 61, 190-201.[CrossRef]
  • Messick, D., & Brewer, M. B. (1983). Solving social dilemmas: A review. In L. Wheeler & P. Shaver (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 11-44). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Messick, D. M., & McClelland, C. L. (1983). Social traps and temporal traps. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 105-110.[Abstract]
  • Messick, D. M., & Schell, H. (1992). Evidence for an equality heuristic in social decision making. Acta Psychologica, 80, 311-323.[CrossRef]
  • Messick, D. M., Wilke, H., Brewer, M. B., Kramer, R. M., Zemke, P. E., & Lui, L. (1983). Individual adaptations and structural change as solutions to social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 294-309.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Decision Processes, 39, 84-97.[CrossRef]
  • Olsen, R. A. (1997). Desirability bias among professional investment managers: Some evidence from experts. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 65-72.[CrossRef]
  • Orbell, J. M., Van De Kragt, A. J. C., & Dawes, R. M. (1988). Explaining discussion-induced cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 811-819.[CrossRef]
  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions of collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  • Rapoport, A., Budescu, D. V., Suleiman, R., & Weg, E. (1992). Social dilemmas with uniformly distributed resources. In W. Liebrand, D. M. Messick, & H. Wilke (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 43-57). Oxford: Pergamon.
  • Schroeder, D. A., Sibicky, M. E., & Irwin, M. E., (1995). A framework for understanding decisions in social dilemmas. In D. A. Schroeder (Ed.), Social dilemmas: Perspectives on individuals and groups (pp. 183-200). Westport, CT: Praeger.
  • Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1971). Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 649-744.[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Suleiman, R., & Rapoport, A. (1988). Environmental and social uncertainty in single-trial resource dilemmas. Acta Psychologica, 68, 99-112.[CrossRef]
  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judging under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 5, 1124-1131.
  • Van Lange, P. A. M., Liebrand, W. B. G., Messick, D. M., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1992). Introduction and literature review. In W. Liebrand, D. M. Messick, & H. Wilke (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings. (pp. 3-28). Oxford: Pergamon.
  • Weinsten, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 806-820.
  • Wilke, H. A. M. (1991). Greed, efficiency and fairness in resource management situations. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 165-187). London: Wiley.
  • Wit, A., & Wilke, H. (1998). Public good provision under environmental and social uncertainty. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 249-256.[CrossRef]
  • Wright, W. F., & Anderson, U. (1989). Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 68-82.[CrossRef]
  • Zakay, D. (1983). The relationship between the probability assessor and the outcomes of an event as a determiner of subjective probability. Acta Psychologica, 53, 271-280.[CrossRef]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
W. T. Au and M. Y. Ngai
Effects of Group Size Uncertainty and Protocol of Play in a Common Pool Resource Dilemma
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, July 1, 2003; 6(3): 265 - 283.
[Abstract] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gustafsson, M.
Right arrow Articles by Gärling, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?