what individuals fo for groups

?
Public goods dilemma
People cannot be prevented from using a resource, even if they haven’t contributed Individual is better off if they don’t contribute
1 of 20
Commons dilemma
A resource is for everyone but if overused by individuals, then eventually nobody will be able to use it
2 of 20
De Cremer & van vugt 1999 findings
The more people identify with a group, the more they are likely to co-operate Especially if they are pro-self
3 of 20
altruistic punishment -(Fehr & Gächter, 2002
People often punish defectors at their own expense – altruistic punishment
4 of 20
– indirect reciprocity
indirectly reward someone who has done good
5 of 20
Fehr & Gächter (2002) altrusistic punishment
Argued that evolution, especially group selection, predisposes us to punish free-riders
6 of 20
what was the details of their study
Public goods dilemma in rounds of 6 blocks In some blocks, participants were allowed to punish defectors anonymously, and each 1 of their units costs the defector 3 units 84% punished at least once
7 of 20
explain the power of alruristic punishment to increase cooperation
when particicipants have the ability to punish each pther, cooperation levees are highand increase over time. When this ability is taken away, cooperation leveles drop dramatically and keep dropping, cont
8 of 20
Dreber et al., 2002 stated that alturistic punishment....
Altruistic punishment costs punisher and punished, so lowers overall wealth of group
9 of 20
Campbell (1967): universal outgroup stereotype
People generally assume that relationships between groups are competitive And so more distrustful of other groups than other individuals
10 of 20
(Insko et al., 1990)
fellow group members may justify and encourage competitive intergroup behaviour `
11 of 20
Greed and norms Windschut et al 2015
Intergroup (vs. interindividual) PDG + Competitive norms (it’s good to compete) + Competitive behaviour (‘defection’)
12 of 20
Greed and accountability
to ingroup members also makes people more competitive, partly because it gives potency to the norm to look after the ingroup
13 of 20
what additions does this include on the traingle
Accountability (ingroup members can see you) + Competitive behaviour (‘defection’)
14 of 20
Pinter & Wildschut, 2012) - it can be rationalised
people are more selfish when they can rationalise their competition as being for “us” But only when they are not already prone to
15 of 20
Cikara et al. (2014): Reduced self-referential moral processing
Medial prefrontal cortex (mPC) activation Self-referential moral processing apparent if the mPC lights up more for I have helped a friend cheat on an exam than for She has cheated on an exam
16 of 20
oxytocin
A neuropeptide produced in hypothalamus, released into brain and bloodstream Neurotransmitter and hormone Hits amygdala, hippocampus, brainstem, spinal cord Associated with love, pair bonding, relationship commitment, sex, pregnancy, childbirth I
17 of 20
De Dreu's (2010) study oxytocin and trust
snorting oxytocin also increased trust in “us” and reduces trust in “them”…and increased donations to “us” but not “them”
18 of 20
Milgrim obedience study
15 v -450 stopped responding t 300v
19 of 20
slater et al (p value)
Participants become increasingly (lower p value) more distressed by visible (vs hidden) avatar
20 of 20

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Commons dilemma

Back

A resource is for everyone but if overused by individuals, then eventually nobody will be able to use it

Card 3

Front

De Cremer & van vugt 1999 findings

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

altruistic punishment -(Fehr & Gächter, 2002

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

– indirect reciprocity

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Group psychology resources »