Wing Tung Au

The effects of feelings of guilt on the behaviour of uncooperative individuals in repeated social bargaining games: An affect-as-information interpretation of the role of emotion in social interaction

In two studies we found that feelings of guilt provoke individuals to cooperate in repeated social bargaining games (a prisoners dilemma in Study 1 and an ultimatum game in Study 2). Feelings of guilt were either experimentally manipulated (Study 1) or assessed via self-report (Study 2) after participants had played one round of a social bargaining game. As predicted, individuals who experienced feelings of guilt (compared to individuals who felt no guilt) after pursuing a non-cooperative strategy in the first round of play, displayed higher levels of cooperation in the subsequent round of play (even one week later). Results are discussed in terms of an “affect-as-information” model, which suggests that non-cooperating individuals who experience the negative affective state associated with guilt in a social bargaining game may be using this feeling state as “information” about the future costs of pursuing an uncooperative strategy. Because in guilt the focus is on the specific, individuals are capable of ridding themselves of this emotional state through action (Lewis, 1993, p. 570)

A Qualitative and Quantitative Review of Antecedents of Counterproductive Behavior in Organizations

This paper presents a qualitative and quantitative review of the antecedents of counterproductive behaviors (CPB). The qualitative review organizes antecedents identified in past research into four broad categories: personal, organizational, work, and contextual factors. The quantitative review includes metaanalyses of 40 published studies with a combined sample size of 42,359. The results indicate that employees who are young or dissatisfied engage in more CPBs. In addition, absenteeism is more prevalent among employees who are young, female, have lower income, have lower job satisfaction, and who perceive a stronger absence norm, or a stronger ability to be on time.

Teaching Satisfaction Scale Measuring Job Satisfaction of Teachers

The present study proposes a teaching satisfaction measure and examines the validity of its scores. The measure is based on the Life Satisfaction Scale (LSS). Scores on the five-item Teaching Satisfaction Scale (TSS) were validated on a sample of 202 primary and secondary school teachers and favorable psychometric properties were found. As hypothesized, teaching satisfaction as measured by the TSS correlated positively with self-esteem but negatively with psychological distress and teaching stress. The TSS scores had good incremental validity for psychological distress and teaching stress beyond earlier Job Satisfaction Scales. The TSS offers a simple, direct, reliable, and valid assessment of teaching satisfaction. Future development of the TSS is discussed.

Cooperativeness and competitiveness as two distinct constructs: Validating the Cooperative and Competitive Personality Scale in a social dilemma context

The present research validated the construct and criterion validities of the Cooperative and Competitive Personality Scale (CCPS) in a social dilemma context. The results from three studies supported the notion that cooperativeness and competitiveness are two independent dimensions, challenging the traditional view that they are two ends of a single continuum. First, confirmatory factor analyses revealed that a two-factor structure fit the data significantly better than a one-factor structure. Moreover, cooperativeness and competitiveness were either not significantly correlated (Studies 1 and 3) or only moderately positively correlated (Study 2). Second, cooperativeness and competitiveness were differentially associated with Schwartzs Personal Values. These results further supported the idea that cooperativeness and competitiveness are two distinct constructs. Specifically, the individuals who were highly cooperative emphasized self-transcendent values (i.e., universalism and benevolence) more, whereas the individuals who were highly competitive emphasized self-enhancement values (i.e., power and achievement) more. Finally, the CCPS, which adheres to the trait perspective of personality, was found to be a useful supplement to more prevalent social motive measures (i.e., social value orientation) in predicting cooperative behaviors. Specifically, in Study 2, when social value orientation was controlled for, the CCPS significantly predicted cooperative behaviors in a public goods dilemma (individuals who score higher on cooperativeness scale contributed more to the public goods). In Study 3, when social value orientation was controlled for, the CCPS significantly predicted cooperative behaviors in commons dilemmas (individuals who score higher on cooperativeness scale requested fewer resources from the common resource pool). The practical implications of the CCPS in conflict resolution, as well as in recruitment and selection settings, are discussed.

Order Effects in Individual and Group Policy Allocations

Although citizen panels have become quite popular for policy making, there is very little research on how the procedures these groups employ to manage consensus affect their decision making. We measured the effect of a simple procedural mechanism, agenda order, on individual and group allocations for an HIV policy. Allocations made in a large-small (state-region-city) order were substantially smaller, overall, than were allocations made in small-large (city-region-state) order, and group allocations were smaller, overall, than were individual judgments. The Social Judgment Scheme model (Davis, 1996) provided a good fit of the group allocation, and suggested a mechanism for this overall downward shift in judgment. Normative (i.e. calibration) analyses, as well as subjective impressions (e.g. confidence, repeat judgments) favored relatively smaller allocations so that judgments made in large-small order, and judgments made in groups were arguably more defensible than were individual or small-large judgments. We discuss these strong agenda influences and their implications both for citizen panels and for theoretical research on group consensus.

Expectation and cooperation in prisoner’s dilemmas: The moderating role of game riskiness

This paper investigated the effect of risk orientation, game riskiness, and expectation of cooperation on cooperation in one-shot prisoner’s dilemmas (PD). Participants in pairs played PD games that varied on game riskiness such that for half of the games cooperation was more risky than defection (more risky games) while for another half cooperation was less risky (less risky games). They estimated how likely it was that the other player was going to cooperate (expectation of cooperation) before they made their cooperation/defection decision on each game. Supporting the Goal/Expectation Hypothesis, we replicated the effect that expectation of cooperation enhanced cooperation. We also found that risk-seeking individuals cooperated more in more risky games whereas risk-averse individuals cooperated more in less risky games. More importantly, we found that game riskiness moderated the effect of expectation of cooperation on cooperation. The positive effect of expectation of cooperation on cooperation was stronger for more risky games than for less risky games. Our results illustrated how the relation between expectation and cooperation as stipulated by the Goal/Expectation Hypothesis was moderated by riskiness of the situations.

Values, self and other-regarding behavior in the dictator game

Do values influence behavior? This study investigates whether individuals’ value beliefs, measured by the Schwartz Portrait Value Questionnaire, causally influence their other-regarding behavior in the dictator game. We find that four out of the five values we examine correlate significantly with individuals’ game behavior. Furthermore, for the purpose of establishing causality, we conduct two experimental manipulations to test if cognitively “activating” the values increases value-congruent behavior. The first manipulation primes the value beliefs to make them cognitively salient. The second, which draws on the notion that values are internalized into one’s self-system, primes and makes salient the self. Both manipulations—priming the values and priming the self—are found to generally increase the impacts of values on action, which provides evidence that values do causally influence behavior. Unexpected findings regarding the universalism value and the hedonism value are also discussed.

Effect of Information Structure in a Step-Level Public-Good Dilemma Under a Real-Time Protocol

A public good (PG) is a commodity or service made available to all members of a group. It has the property of non-rivalry that multiple people can simultaneously consume the same unit of the good. It also has the property of non-excludability that it is not possible (or very costly) to exclude people who do not pay from consuming the good (Davis & Holt, 1993). Public-good provision typically depends on the voluntary contribution by group members. Once provided, all can enjoy the benefits of the PG, regardless of whether or not they contributed. In the typical case that the marginal return on the PG is not sufficient to induce voluntary contribution, there is a strong temptation to free-ride (not contribute) in the hope that others will contribute sufficiently. A key classification of public-good dilemmas is the relationship between the level of contributions and the level of provision of the public good (Kollock, 1998). Discrete good, also known as step-level good, can only be provided in its entirety; it is not practical to provide in a lesser amount (Komorita & Parks, 1994). An example is a bridge, which will only be built if voluntary contributions are enough to cover the whole cost. On the contrary, continuous goods can be provided at any level, determined by the rate or amount of contribution. There is not a minimum amount of contribution before it can function. This study examines a step-level public-good dilemma.

The effect of subgroup homogeneity of efficacy on contribution in public good dilemmas

This paper examines how to maximize contribution in public good dilemmas by arranging people into homogeneous or heterogeneous subgroups. Past studies on the effect of homogeneity of efficacy have exclusively manipulated group composition in their experimental designs, which might have imposed a limit on ecological validity because group membership may not be easily changed in reality. In this study, we maintained the same group composition but varied the subgroup composition. We developed a public good dilemmas paradigm in which participants were assigned to one of the four conditions (high- vs. low-efficacy; homogeneous vs. heterogeneous subgroup) to produce their endowments and then to decide how much to contribute. We found that individuals in homogeneous and heterogeneous subgroups produced a similar amount and proportion of contribution, which was due to the two mediating effects that counteracted each other, namely (a) perceived efficacy relative to subgroup and (b) expectation of contribution of other subgroup members. This paper demonstrates both the pros and cons of arranging people into homogeneous and heterogeneous subgroups of efficacy.

An Empirical Investigation of the Arts Audience Experience Index

Radbourne et al. proposed an Arts Audience Experience Index (AAEI) which stipulated that performing arts experiences consist of four components: authenticity, collective engagement, knowledge, and risk. Authenticity is associated with truth and believability of a performance. Collective engagement is an audience’s experience of engagement with performers and other audience members. Knowledge is concerned with understanding of and intellectual stimulation created by a performance. Risk is the extent to which a performance meets one’s expectation, is value for money, and fits with one’s self-image. We administered the AAEI to 465 spectators who attended a drama performance and 126 spectators who attended a musical performance. Supporting Radbourne et al.’s framework, confirmatory factor analysis found that audience members could differentiate among the four components of authenticity, collective engagement, knowledge, and risk along the two facets of importance and satisfaction. Regression analyses also showed that satisfaction with these four components contributes meaningfully to the overall evaluation of the performances, although collective engagement was found to be a relatively weaker predictor.