David De Cremer

Gender Differences in Cooperation and Competition The Male-Warrior Hypothesis

Evolutionary scientists argue that human cooperation is the product of a long history of competition among rival groups. There are various reasons to believe that this logic applies particularly to men. In three experiments, using a step-level public-goods task, we found that men contributed more to their group if their group was competing with other groups than if there was no intergroup competition. Female cooperation was relatively unaffected by intergroup competition. These findings suggest that men respond more strongly than women to intergroup threats. We speculate about the evolutionary origins of this gender difference and note some implications.

Managing Group Behavior: The Interplay Between Procedural Justice, Sense of Self, and Cooperation

Publisher Summary This chapter focuses on the reasons for procedural fairness being an important group tool for managing cooperation. It introduces a motivational model of procedural fairness that links the fairness of procedures explicitly to the construction of the social self, a process that, in turn, affects psychological processes and elicits cooperation. A review is provided of studies supporting the argument that procedural fairness is related to the social self. An overview is given addressing how the social self relates to cooperation via the processes of trust and goal transformation. Cooperation requires an individual to be willing to pursue the groups welfare. The central thesis of this chapter is that procedural justice is a key aspect of groups that defines the degree to which the people within those groups will be motivated to engage in cooperation with others in the group. The chapter introduces an integrative conceptual framework and uses it for understanding the interplay of procedures, self, and cooperation. Finally, some implications of the motivational model are discussed.

Respect and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: The Importance of Feeling Included

The present research examined the effect of respect communicated by fellow group members on one’s willingness to contribute to the group’s welfare. Based on the procedural justice literature, it was expected that respect would communicate important relational information, consequently enhancing people’s motivation to promote the group’s welfare. Using a public good dilemma, it was found that respect indeed motivated group members to contribute more to the group’s welfare and that this was most pronounced among group members who felt least included (i.e., peripheral members) relative to group members who felt included (i.e., core members).These findings illustrate the importance of decision makers’ concerns about viable and positive intragroup relationships in their decision to cooperate or not.The present research examined the effect of respect communicated by fellow group members on one’s willingness to contribute to the group’s welfare. Based on the procedural justice literature, it was expected that respect would communicate important relational information, consequently enhancing people’s motivation to promote the group’s welfare. Using a public good dilemma, it was found that respect indeed motivated group members to contribute more to the group’s welfare and that this was most pronounced among group members who felt least included (i.e., peripheral members) relative to group members who felt included (i.e., core members).These findings illustrate the importance of decision makers’ concerns about viable and positive intragroup relationships in their decision to cooperate or not.

Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: the roles of social responsibility and reciprocity

Two studies examined the choice differences between prosocials and proselfs by examining the influence of norms of social responsibility and reciprocity. In line with the integrative model of social value orientation, it was expected that prosocials differ from proselfs in their level of cooperation because they wish to maximize own and others outcomes (i.e. paralleling the norm of social responsibility) and enhance equality in outcomes (i.e. paralleling the norm of reciprocity). Study 1 revealed that prosocials felt more responsible to further the groups interest than proselfs did and this social responsibility feeling appeared to account for choice differences. Study 2 revealed that prosocials were more likely to reciprocate their partners actions than were proselfs. Also, feelings of social responsibility did not account for this observation, suggesting that enhancing joint outcomes and equality in outcomes constitute two relatively independent dimensions. The findings are discussed in light of the integrative model of social value orientation. Copyright

The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation

The present research examined the effect of procedural fairness and trust in an authority on peoples willingness to cooperate with the authority across a wide range of social situations. Prior research has shown that the presence of information about whether an authority can be trusted moderates the effect of procedural fairness. If no trust information is available, procedural fairness influences peoples reactions. This is not the case when information about the trustworthiness of the authority is present. In the present article, it is argued that information about whether the authority can or cannot be trusted may also moderate the effect of procedural fairness in predicting levels of cooperation. Assuming that the use of fair procedures by authorities that cannot be trusted is less influential than is the enactment of procedures by trustworthy authorities, it is predicted that trust in authority moderates the influence of procedural fairness on cooperation in such a way that procedural fairness has a positive effect on cooperation primarily when trust in authority is high. Results from 4 studies (2 experimental studies and 2 field studies) provide supportive evidence for this interaction.

Perceived support as a mediator of the relationship between justice and trust: A multiple foci approach

Using a sample of 212 employees, the authors examined the relationships between employees’ perceptions of procedural and interactional justice and their subsequent trust in their organization and supervisor. Specifically, the authors predicted that the link between procedural justice and trust in organization would be mediated by perceived organizational support (POS), whereas the relationship between interactional justice and trust in supervisor would be mediated by perceived supervisor support (PSS). In line with predictions, the authors found that POS partially mediated the effect of procedural justice on trust in organization and PSS partially mediated the impact of interactional justice on trust in supervisor. These findings suggest that employees develop relationships with their supervisors that are distinct from those relationships they experience with their organization.

Leadership and Fairness: The State of the Art

Research in leadership effectiveness has paid less to the role of leader fairness than probably it should have. More recently, this has started to change. To capture this development, we review the empirical literature in leadership and fairness to define the field of leadership and fairness, to assess the state of the art, and to identify a research agenda for future efforts in the field. The review shows that leader distributive, procedural, and especially interactional fairness are positively associated with criteria of leadership effectiveness. More scarce and scattered evidence also suggests that fairness considerations help explain the effectiveness of other aspects of leadership, and that leader fairness and other aspects of leadership, or the leadership context, may interact in predicting leadership effectiveness. We conclude that future research should especially focus on interaction effects of leader fairness and other aspects of leadership, and on the processes mediating these effects.

Self-uncertainty and responsiveness to procedural justice

We propose that self-uncertainty moderates responsiveness to perceived variations (e.g., breaches or provisions) in procedural justice. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that high (compared to low) self-uncertainty individuals are more responsive to variations in procedural justice, because they use procedural information to infer their organizational acceptance, respect, or social standing. In six experiments, high (compared to low) self-uncertainty individuals responded with affective, cognitive, and behavioral intensity to perceived variations in procedural justice. In particular, they felt worse, judged the procedure as unfair, and were unwilling to cooperate when they were deprived (as opposed to granted) voice. However, this pattern was cancelled out when these individuals engaged in a self-affirming activity. The findings establish the self in general, and self-uncertainty in particular, as a crucial moderator of responses to procedural information.

Autocratic leadership in social dilemmas: A threat to group stability

This paper investigated the impact of leadership style on the stability of small social dilemma groups. In two experiments, group members were more likely to exit their group and take their resources elsewhere if they were supervised by an autocratic style leader than by a democratic or laissez-faire style leader. The destabilizing influence of autocratic leadership is due to the procedural rather than distributive aspects of this leadership style: More members exited their group under an autocratic style leader, relative to a democratic style leader, regardless of whether or not they received favorable personal outcomes from the leader. Hence, autocratic leadership is not a stable long-term solution to the problem of public goods in groups.

Fairness concerns predict medial frontal negativity amplitude in ultimatum bargaining

Abstract Despite evidence that anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) activity is related to social exclusion, rejection and unfairness, evidence that medial frontal negativity (MFN), which has its source in the ACC, reflects these constructs remains unforthcoming. In the present study, subjects participated as recipients in an ultimatum game, while we recorded their electro-encephalogram (EEG). Participants responded to fair and unfair offers from different human proposers. In addition, participants rated themselves on a measure evaluating their concern for fairness. Results showed that MFN amplitude was more pronounced for unfair offers compared to fair offers. Moreover, this effect was shown to be most pronounced for subjects with high concerns for fairness. Our findings suggest that the MFN not only reflects whether outcomes match expectations, but also reflects whether the process by which these outcomes came about matches a social or even a moral norm. In addition, the present results suggest that people in bargaining situations are not only concerned with their own outcomes, but are also concerned with the fairness of the process that resulted in these outcomes.