Skip to main content
Scheduled maintenance on Monday, June 3rd, with potential service disruption. Find out more.
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Other
First published online January 1, 2018

Social Value Orientation, Expectations, and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta–Analysis

Jan Luca Pletzer j.pletzer@jacobs–university.de, Daniel Balliet, Jeff Joireman, D. Michael Kuhlman, Sven C. Voelpel, and Paul A.M. Van LangeView all authors and affiliations
Volume 32, Issue 1
https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2139

Abstract

Interdependent situations are pervasive in human life. In these situations, it is essential to form expectations about the others’ behaviour to adapt one's own behaviour to increase mutual outcomes and avoid exploitation. Social value orientation, which describes the dispositional weights individuals attach to their own and to another person's outcome, predicts these expectations of cooperation in social dilemmas—an interdependent situation involving a conflict of interests. Yet, scientific evidence is inconclusive about the exact differences in expectations between prosocials, individualists, and competitors. The present meta–analytic results show that, relative to proselfs (individualists and competitors), prosocials expect more cooperation from others in social dilemmas, whereas individualists and competitors do not significantly differ in their expectations. The importance of these expectations in the decision process is further highlighted by the finding that they partially mediate the well–established relation between social value orientation and cooperative behaviour in social dilemmas. In fact, even proselfs are more likely to cooperate when they expect their partner to cooperate. Copyright © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

Get Access

References

*Studies marked with an asterisk are included in the meta–analysis.
Ackermann K. A., Fleiß J., & Murphy R. O. (2016). Reciprocity as an individual difference. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 60, 340–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002714541854.
Google Scholar
Aksoy O., & Weesie J. (2012). Beliefs about the social orientations of others: A parametric test of the triangle, false consensus, and cone hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.009.
Google Scholar
Angrist J. D., Imbens G. W., Rubin D. B., Angrist J. D., Imbens G. W., & Rubin D. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 444–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1996.10476902.
Google Scholar
Ashton M. C., & Lee K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294907.
Google Scholar
Au W. T., & Kwong Y. Y. (2004). Measurements and effects of social–value orientation in social dilemmas. In Suleiman R., Budescu D. V., Fischer I., & Messick D. M. (Eds.), Contemporary research on social dilemmas (pp. 71–98). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
*Balliet D. (2012). Social value orientation, expectations, and cooperation. Raw Data: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Google Scholar
*Balliet D., Li N. P., & Joireman J. (2011). Relating trait self–control and forgiveness within prosocials and proselfs: Compensatory versus synergistic models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1090–1105. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024967.
Google Scholar
Balliet D., Mulder L. B., & Van Lange P. A. M. (2011). Reward, punishment, and cooperation: A meta–analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 594–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023489.
Google Scholar
Balliet D., Parks C. D., & Joireman J. (2009). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta–analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209105040.
Google Scholar
*Balliet D., Tybur J. M., Wu J., Antonellis C., & Van Lange P. A. M. (2016). Political ideology, trust, and cooperation: In–group favoritism among republicans and democrats during a US national election. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002716658694.
Google Scholar
Balliet D., & Van Lange P. A. M. (2013). Trust, conflict, and cooperation: A meta–analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1090–1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030939.
Google Scholar
Baron R. M., & Kenny D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.
Google Scholar
Begg C. B., & Mazumdar M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50, 1088–1101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533446.
Google Scholar
*Bixenstine V. E., Lowenfeld B., & Englehart C. E. (1981). Role enactment versus typology: Another test of the triangle hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 776–788. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.4.776.
Google Scholar
Bogaert S., Boone C., & Declerck C. H. (2008). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A review and conceptual model. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 453–480. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X244970.
Google Scholar
Boone C., Declerck C. H., & Kiyonari T. (2010). Inducing cooperative behavior among proselfs versus prosocials: The moderating role of incentives and trust. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54, 799–824. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002710372329.
Google Scholar
*Boone C., Declerck C. H., & Suetens S. (2008). Subtle social cues, explicit incentives and cooperation in social dilemmas. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.12.005.
Google Scholar
Borenstein M., Hedges L. V., Higgins J. P. T., & Rothstein H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta–analysis. West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386
Google Scholar
Buckley W., Burns T., & Meeker L. D. (1974). Structural resolutions of collective action problems. Behavioral Science, 19, 277–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830190502.
Google Scholar
Cameron L. D., Brown P. M., & Chapman J. G. (1998). Social value orientations and decisions to take proenvironmental action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 675–697. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01726.x.
Google Scholar
Carter E. C., Hilgard J., Schönbrodt F. D., & Gervais W. M. (2017). Correcting for bias in psychology: A comparison of meta–analytic methods. OSF Pre–Print.. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9H3NU.
Google Scholar
*Centers R., & Kelley H. H. (1969). Some factors affecting attitudes toward student protests. Data reported in Kelley & Stahelski, 1970.
Google Scholar
Cheung M. W.–L. (2014). Fixed– and random–effects meta–analytic structural equation modeling: Examples and analyses in R. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0361-y.
Google Scholar
Cheung M. W.–L. (2015). Meta–analysis: A structural equation modeling approach. West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118957813
Google Scholar
Dawes R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.001125.
Google Scholar
Dawes R. M., McTavish J., & Shaklee H. (1977). Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people's behavior in a commons dilemma situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.1.1.
Google Scholar
*De Bruin E. N. M., & Van Lange P. A. M. (1999). The double meaning of a single act: Influences of the perceiver and the perceived on cooperative behaviour. European Journal of Personality, 13, 165–182 10.1002/(SICI)1099–0984(199905/06)13:3<165::AID–PER322>3.0.CO;2–9.
Crossref
Google Scholar
*De Cremer D., Van Knippenberg D., Van Dijk E., & Van Leeuwen E. (2008). Cooperating if one's goals are collective–based: Social identification effects in social dilemmas as a function of goal transformation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1562–1579. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00359.x.
Google Scholar
*De Dreu C. K. W., & McCusker C. (1997). Gain–loss frames and cooperation in two–person social dilemmas: A transformational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1093–1106. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1093.
Google Scholar
De Vries R. E., & Van Gelder J.–L. (2013). Tales of two self–control scales: Relations with Five–Factor and HEXACO traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 756–760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.12.023.
Google Scholar
De Vries R. E., & Van Gelder J.–L. (2015). Explaining workplace delinquency: The role of Honesty–Humility, ethical culture, and employee surveillance. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 112–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.008.
Google Scholar
DerSimonian R., & Laird N. (1986). Meta–analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7, 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.
Google Scholar
Dirks K. T., & Ferrin D. L. (2001). The role of trust in organizational settings. Organization Science, 12, 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.450.10640.
Google Scholar
*Dorris J. W. (1969). The effect of nonverbal cues on interpersonal judgments in a bargaining situation. Data report in Kelley & Stahelski, 1970.
Google Scholar
Duval S., & Tweedie R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel–plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta–analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x.
Google Scholar
*Eek D., & Gärling T. (2006). Prosocials prefer equal outcomes to maximizing joint outcomes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466605X52290.
Google Scholar
Egger M., Davey Smith G., Schneider M., & Minder C. (1997). Bias in meta–analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.
Google Scholar
Fehr E., & Gächter S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.159.
Google Scholar
Felfe J., & Schyns B. (2010). Followers’ personality and the perception of transformational leadership: Further evidence for the similarity hypothesis. British Journal of Management, 21, 292–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00649.x.
Google Scholar
Fiedler S., Glöckner A., Nicklisch A., & Dickert S. (2013). Social value orientation and information search in social dilemmas: An eye–tracking analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.07.002.
Google Scholar
Fischbacher U., & Gächter S. (2010). Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 100, 541–556. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.1.541.
Google Scholar
Fischer I., Frid A., Goerg S. J., Levin S. A., Rubenstein D. I., & Selten R. (2013). Fusing enacted and expected mimicry generates a winning strategy that promotes the evolution of cooperation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 10229–10233 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1308221110.
Google Scholar
Fong G. T., & Markus H. (1982). Self–schemas and judgments about others. Social Cognition, 1, 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1982.1.3.191.
Google Scholar
Funder D. C. (2009). Persons, behaviors and situations: An agenda for personality psychology in the postwar era. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 120–126 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.041.
Google Scholar
Gerpott F. H., Balliet D., Columbus S., Molho C., & De Vries R. E. (in press). How do people think about interdependence? A multidimensional model of subjective outcome interdependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Google Scholar
Haselhuhn M. P., Wong E. M., & Ormiston M. E. (2013). Self–fulfilling prophecies as a link between men's facial width–to–height ratio and behavior. PLoS One, 8, e72259. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0072259.
Google Scholar
Hedges L. V., Tipton E., & Johnson M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta–regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5.
Google Scholar
Hedges L. V., & Olkin I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta–analysis. San Diego: Academic Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Higgins J. P. T., Thompson S. G., Deeks J. J., & Altman D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta–analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
Google Scholar
Hilbig B. E., Glöckner A., & Zettler I. (2014). Personality and prosocial behavior: Linking basic traits and social value orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036074.
Google Scholar
Holmes J. G. (2002). Interpersonal expectations as the building blocks of social cognition: An interdependence theory perspective. Personal Relationships, 9, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00001.
Google Scholar
Iedema J., & Poppe M. (1994a). Causal attribution and self–justification as explanations for the consensus expectation of one's social value orientation. European Journal of Personality, 8, 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410080505.
Google Scholar
Iedema J., & Poppe M. (1994b). Effects of social value orientation on expecting and learning others’ orientations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 565–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420240504.
Google Scholar
Iedema J., & Poppe M. (1995). Perceived consensus of one's social value orientation in different populations in public and private circumstances. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 497–507. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420250503.
Google Scholar
Iedema J., & Poppe M. (1999). Expectations of others’ social value orientations in specific and general populations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1443–1450. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672992510001.
Google Scholar
Joireman J., Lasane T. P., Bennett J., Richards D., & Solaimani S. (2001). Integrating social value orientation and the consideration of future consequences within the extended norm activation model of proenvironmental behaviour. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164731.
Google Scholar
Kanagaretnam K., Mestelman S., Nainar K., & Shehata M. (2009). The impact of social value orientation and risk attitudes on trust and reciprocity. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 368–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2008.12.003.
Google Scholar
*Kanouse D. E., & Wiest W. M. (1967). Some factors affecting choice in the prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 11, 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200276701100208.
Google Scholar
Kelley H. H., Holmes J. G., Kerr N. L., Reis H. T., Rusbult C. E., & Van Lange P. A. M. (2003). An atlas of interpersonal situations. An Atlas of Interpersonal Situations. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499845.
Google Scholar
*Kelley H. H., Shure G. H., Deutsch M., Faucheux C., Lanzetta J. T., Moscovici S., … Rabbie J. M. (1970). A comparative experimental study of negotiation behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 411–438. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030068.
Google Scholar
*Kelley H. H., & Stahelski A. J. (1970a). Social interaction basis of cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefs about others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 66–91. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029849.
Google Scholar
*Kelley H. H., & Stahelski A. J. (1970b). The inference of intentions from moves in the prisoner's dilemma game. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(70)90052-1.
Google Scholar
*Kiyonari T. (2011). Social value orientation, expectations, and cooperation. Raw Data. Tokyo, Japan: Aoyama Gakuin University.
Google Scholar
*Kiyonari T., & Barclay P. (2008). Cooperation in social dilemmas: Free riding may be thwarted by second–order reward rather than by punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 826–842. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0011381.
Google Scholar
*Kiyonari T., Declerck C. H., Boone C., & Pollet T. (2008). Does intention matter? A comparison between public good and common resource dilemma games with positive and negative sanctions in one–shot interactions. Paper presentation at the 20th annual meeting of the human behavior and evolution society. Japan: Kyoto University, Yoshida Campus, Kyoto.
Google Scholar
Kocher M. G., Cherry T., Kroll S., Netzer R. J., & Sutter M. (2008). Conditional cooperation on three continents. Economics Letters, 101, 175–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2008.07.015.
Google Scholar
*Kramer R. M., McClintock C. G., & Messick D. M. (1986). Social values and cooperative response to a simulated resource conservation crisis. Journal of Personality, 54, 576–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00413.x.
Google Scholar
Krueger J. I. (2007). From social projection to social behaviour. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701284645.
Google Scholar
Krueger J. I., & Acevedo M. (2007). Perceptions of self and other in the prisoner's dilemma: Outcome bias and evidential reasoning. The American Journal of Psychology, 120, 593–618.
Google Scholar
Kuhlman D. M., Camac C. R., & Cunha D. A. (1986). Individual differences in social orientation. In Wilke H. A. M., & Messick D. M. (Eds.), Experimental social dilemmas. New York: Lang.
Google Scholar
Kuhlman D. M., & Marshello A. F. (1975). Individual differences in game motivation as moderators of preprogrammed strategy effects in prisoner's dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 922–931. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.922.
Google Scholar
*Kuhlman D. M., & Wimberley D. L. (1976). Expectations of choice behavior held by cooperators, competitors, and individualists across four classes of experimental game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.1.69.
Google Scholar
Lee K., Gizzarone M., & Ashton M. C. (2003). Personality and the likelihood to sexually harass. Sex Roles, 49, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023961603479.
Google Scholar
Liebrand W. B. G. (1984). The effect of social motives, communication and group size on behaviour in an N–person multi–stage mixed–motive game. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 239–264. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420140302.
Google Scholar
Liebrand W. B. G., & McClintock C. G. (1988). The ring measure of social values: A computerized procedure for assessing individual differences in information processing and social value orientation. European Journal of Personality, 2, 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410020304.
Google Scholar
*Liebrand W. B. G., Wilke H. A. M., Vogel R., & Wolters F. J. M. (1986). Value orientation and conformity: A study using three types of social dilemma games. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30, 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002786030001006.
Google Scholar
Loomis J. L. (1959). Communication, the development of trust, and cooperative behavior. Human Relations, 12, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675901200402.
Google Scholar
Luce R. D., & Raiffa H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Google Scholar
McClintock C. G. (1972). Social motivations—A set of propositions. Behavioral Science, 17, 438–454. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830170505.
Google Scholar
McClintock C. G., & Allison S. T. (1989). Social value orientation and helping behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1989.tb00060.x.
Google Scholar
McClintock C. G., & Liebrand W. B. G. (1988). Role of interdependence structure, individual value orientation, and another's strategy in social decision making: A transformational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 396–409. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.3.396.
Google Scholar
*Messé L. A., & Sivacek J. M. (1979). Predictions of others’ responses in a mixed–motive game: Self–justification or false consensus? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 602–607. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.4.602.
Google Scholar
Messick D. M., & McClintock C. G. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(68)90046-2.
Google Scholar
*Miller D. T., & Holmes J. G. (1975). The role of situational restrictiveness on self–fulfilling prophecies: A theoretical and empirical extension of Kelley and Stahelski's triangle hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 661–673. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077081.
Google Scholar
Miller D. T., & Ratner R. K. (1998). The disparity between the actual and assumed power of self–interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.53.
Google Scholar
*Misra S., & Kalro A. (1979). Triangle effect and the connotative meaning of trust in prisoner's dilemma: A cross cultural study. International Journal of Psychology, 14, 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207597908246736.
Google Scholar
Murphy R. O., Ackermann K. A., & Handgraaf M. J. J. (2010). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision making, 6, 771–781. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1804189.
Google Scholar
Nauta A., De Dreu C. K. W., & Van Der Vaart T. (2002). Social value orientation, organizational goal concerns and interdepartmental problem–solving behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.136.
Google Scholar
Parks C. D., Joireman J., & Van Lange P. A. M. (2013). Cooperation, trust, and antagonism: How public goods are promoted. Psychological Science in the Public Interest (Vol. 14). https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612474436
Google Scholar
Pfattheicher S., & Böhm R. (2017). Honesty–Humility under threat: Self–uncertainty destroys trust among the nice guys. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, in press, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000144.
Google Scholar
Pruitt D. G., & Kimmel M. J. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and sugestions for the future. Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 363–392. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.28.020177.002051.
Google Scholar
Pulford B. D., Krockow E. M., Colman A. M., & Lawrence C. L. (2016). Social value induction and cooperation in the centipede game. PLoS One, 11, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0152352.
Google Scholar
Rand D. G., Arbesman S., & Christakis N. A. (2011). Dynamic social networks promote cooperation in experiments with humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 19193–19198.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Renkewitz F., Fuchs H. M., & Fiedler S. (2011). Is there evidence of publication biases in JDM research? Judgment and Decision making, 6, 870–881.
Google Scholar
Rockenbach B., & Milinski M. (2011). To qualify as a social partner, humans hide severe punishment, although their observed cooperativeness is decisive. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 18307–18312. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1108996108.
Google Scholar
Ross L., Greene D., & House P. (1977). The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-X.
Google Scholar
Rousseau D. M., Sitkin S. B., Burt R. S., & Camerer C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross–discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393–404. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1998.926617.
Google Scholar
Rusbult C. E., & Van Lange P. A. M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 351–375. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145059.
Google Scholar
Sattler D. N., & Kerr N. L. (1991). Might versus morality explored: Motivational and cognitive bases for social motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 756–765. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.756.
Google Scholar
*Schlenker B. R., & Goldman H. J. (1978). Cooperators and competitors in conflict: A test of the “Triangle Model.”. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 22, 393–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200277802200302.
Google Scholar
Sheldon K. M. (1999). Learning the lessons of tit–for–tat: Even competitors can get the message. Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 77, 1245–1253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1245.
Google Scholar
Sherman R. A., Nave C. S., & Funder D. C. (2013). Situational construal is related to personality and gender. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.10.008.
Google Scholar
*Smeesters D., Warlop L., Van Avermaet E., Corneille O., & Yzerbyt V. (2003a). Do not prime hawks with doves: The interplay of construct activation and consistency of social value orientation on cooperative behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 972–987. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.972.
Google Scholar
*Smeesters D., Warlop L., Yzerbyt V., Corneille O., & van Avermaet E. (2003b). About prisoners and dictators: The role of other–self focus, social value orientation, and stereotype primes in shaping cooperative behavior. DTEW Research Report, 0317, 1–74.
Google Scholar
Smith V. L. (1979). Incentive compatible experimental processes for the provision of public goods. In Research in experimental economics (pp. 59–168). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Google Scholar
*Stouten J., De Cremer D., & Van Dijk E. (2005). All is well that ends well, at least for proselfs: Emotional reactions to equality violation as a function of social value orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 767–783. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.276.
Google Scholar
Tanner–Smith E. E., & Tipton E. (2014). Robust variance estimation with dependent effect sizes: Practical considerations including a software tutorial in Stata and SPSS. Research Synthesis Methods, 5, 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1091.
Google Scholar
Terrin N., Schmid C. H., Lau J., & Olkin I. (2003). Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 2113–2126. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1461.
Google Scholar
Thielmann I., & Hilbig B. E. (2014). Trust in me, trust in you: A social projection account of the link between personality, cooperativeness, and trustworthiness expectations. Journal of Research in Personality, 50, 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.03.006.
Google Scholar
Tipton E. (2015). Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta–regression. Psychological Methods, 20, 375–393.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Van Andel C. E. E., Tybur J. M., & Van Lange P. A. M. (2016). Donor registration, college major, and prosociality: Differences among students of economics, medicine and psychology. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 277–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.037.
Google Scholar
Van Dijke M., & Verboon P. (2010). Trust in authorities as a boundary condition to procedural fairness effects on tax compliance. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2009.10.005.
Google Scholar
*Van Lange P. A. M. (1992). Confidence in expectations: A test of the triangle hypothesis. European Journal of Personality, 6, 371–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410060505.
Google Scholar
Van Lange P. A. M. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.2.337.
Google Scholar
Van Lange P. A. M. (2000). Beyond self–interest: A set of propositions relevant to interpersonal orientations. In Stroebe W., & Hewstone M. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 297–331). New York: Wiley.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Van Lange P. A. M., Bekkers R., Chirumbolo A., & Leone L. (2012). Are conservatives less likely to be prosocial than liberals? From games to ideology, political preferences and voting. European Journal of Personality, 26, 461–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.845.
Google Scholar
Van Lange P. A. M., Joireman J., Parks C. D., & Van Dijk E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.003.
Google Scholar
Van Lange P. A. M., Klapwijk A., & Van Munster L. M. (2011a). How the shadow of the future might promote cooperation. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14, 857–870. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211402102.
Google Scholar
*Van Lange P. A. M., & Kuhlman D. M. (1994). Social value orientations and impressions of partner's honesty and intelligence: A test of the might versus morality effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 126–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.126.
Google Scholar
*Van Lange P. A. M., & Liebrand W. B. G. (1989). On perceiving morality and potency: Social values and the effects of person perception in a give–some dilemma. European Journal of Personality, 3, 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410030306.
Google Scholar
*Van Lange P. A. M., & Liebrand W. B. G. (1991a). Social value orientation and intelligence: A test of the goal prescribes rationality principle. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 273–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420210402.
Google Scholar
*Van Lange P. A. M., & Liebrand W. B. G. (1991b). The influence of others’ morality and own social value orientation on cooperation in the Netherlands and the USA. International Journal of Psychology, 26, 429–449. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207599108247133.
Google Scholar
Van Lange P. A. M., Otten W., De Bruin E. M., & Joireman J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 733–746. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.733.
Google Scholar
Van Lange P. A. M., Schippers M., & Balliet D. (2011b). Who volunteers in psychology experiments? An empirical review of prosocial motivation in volunteering. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 279–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.038.
Google Scholar
Van Lange P. A. M., Van Vugt M., Meertens R. M., & Ruiter R. A. C. (1998). A social dilemma analysis of commuting preferences: The roles of social value orientation and trust. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 796–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01732.x.
Google Scholar
Van Vugt M., Meertens R. M., & Van Lange P. A. M. (1995). Car versus public transportation? The role of social value orientations in a real–life social dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01594.x.
Google Scholar
Vollan B., & Ostrom E. (2010). Cooperation and the commons. Science, 330, 923–924. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1198349.
Google Scholar
Vuolevi J. H. K., & Van Lange P. A. M. (2010). Beyond the information given: The power of a belief in self–interest. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1–9 https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.711.
Google Scholar
Vuolevi J. H. K., & Van Lange P. A. M. (2012). Boundaries of reciprocity: Incompleteness of information undermines cooperation. Acta Psychologica, 141, 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.07.004.
Google Scholar
*Wu J., Balliet D., & Kou Y. (2013). Social value orientation, emotion, and cooperation in social dilemmas. China: Unpublished Manuscript, Beijng Normal University.
Google Scholar
Wu J., Balliet D., & Van Lange P. A. M. (2015). When does gossip promote generosity? Indirect reciprocity under the shadow of the future. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 923–930. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615595272.
Google Scholar
Wu J., Balliet D., & Van Lange P. A. M. (2016). Reputation, gossip, and human cooperation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 350–364. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12255.
Google Scholar
*Yamagishi T., Mifune N., Li Y., Shinada M., Hashimoto H., Horita Y., … Simunovic D. (2013). Is behavioral pro–sociality game–specific? Pro–social preference and expectations of pro–sociality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.002.
Google Scholar

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Volume 32, Issue 1
Pages: 62 - 83
Article first published online: January 1, 2018
Issue published: January 2018

Keywords

  1. cooperation
  2. social value orientation
  3. expectations
  4. trust
  5. social dilemmas

Rights and permissions

© 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology.
Request permissions for this article.

Open practices

  • Open Data

Authors

Affiliations

Jan Luca Pletzer
Department of Business and Economics, Jacobs University Bremen, Germany
Institute for Brain and Behavior Amsterdam (IBBA), Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands
j.pletzer@jacobs–university.de
View all articles by this author
Daniel Balliet
Institute for Brain and Behavior Amsterdam (IBBA), Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands
View all articles by this author
Jeff Joireman
College of Business, Washington State University, Pullman, WA USA
View all articles by this author
D. Michael Kuhlman
Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE USA
View all articles by this author
Sven C. Voelpel
Department of Business and Economics, Jacobs University Bremen, Germany
View all articles by this author
Paul A.M. Van Lange
Institute for Brain and Behavior Amsterdam (IBBA), Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands
View all articles by this author

Notes

*
Department of Business and Economics, Jacobs University Bremen, Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany. E–mail: j.pletzer@jacobs–university.de Daniel Balliet, Social and Organizational Psychology, VU Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 1, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E–mail: [email protected]
This article earned Open Data badge through Open Practices Disclosure from the Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki. The data and materials are permanently and openly accessible at http://osf.io/2dc4p. Author's disclosure form may also be found at the Supporting Information in the online version.

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in European Journal of Personality.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 2143

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016

Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 123

  1. Go with feelings: heuristic information affects the prediction of soci...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. When Prosocial Motives Matter Most: The Interactive Effects of Social ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  3. Motivated Cognition in Cooperation
    Go to citation Crossref Google ScholarPub Med
  4. Group budget‐based bonus scheme and group cooperation: The role of soc...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  5. Hierarchy Conflict: Causes, Expressions, and Consequences
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  6. The Moral Foundations of Vaccine Passports
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  7. Coordination Dynamics in Technology Adoption
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  8. Measuring social value orientation by model-based scoring
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  9. Development of Japanese version of the Situational Interdependence Sca...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  10. Dark Triad, Motivation to Achieve Power and Social Value Orientation: ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  11. Dispositional compassion shifts social preferences in systematic ways
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  12. Spillover effects of competition outcome on future risky cooperation
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  13. The role of dominance in sibling relationships: differences in interac...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  14. Predicting Tacit Coordination Success Using Electroencephalogram Traje...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  15. Future of nature, our future. A preregistered report on future time pe...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  16. Employee Perspectives of Leader Value Orientations, Affect, Trust, and...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  17. Cooperation after social exclusion: To reconnect or to harm?
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  18. Three Player Interactions in Urban Settings: Design Challenges for Aut...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  19. Does similarity trigger cooperation? Dyadic effect of similarity in so...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  20. Political ideologies as social strategies: does ideological variation ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  21. How many masks do you buy? A simple dilemma task to differentiate betw...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  22. Predicting focal point solution in divergent interest tacit coordinati...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  23. Indonesia’s Renewable Natural Resource Management in the Low-Carbon Tr...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  24. Biospheric Values Predict Ecological Cooperation in a Commons Dilemma ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  25. Public’s awareness of biobanks and willingness to participate in bioba...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  26. Social value orientation modulates behavioral and neural responses to ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  27. The influence of conflict event strength on interorganizational cooper...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  28. The Effect of Social Value Orientation on Theta to Alpha Ratio in Reso...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  29. The evolution of universal cooperation
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  30. Attention to faces in images is associated with personality and psycho...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  31. Obliterating rating distortions: role of rater disposition and rating ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  32. Intuitive thinking impedes cooperation by decreasing cooperative expec...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  33. The Impact of Cooperative Behavior between Social Organizations during...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  34. The relationship of social value orientation and social entrepreneuria...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  35. Incorporating Social Values for Cooperation in Energy Trading and Bala...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  36. I really am more important than you: The relationship between the Dark...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  37. Leveraging Autonomous Vehicles to Tally Cooperative Driving Behavior
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  38. Procedural fairness facilitates cooperative behavior by enhancing coop...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  39. Narcissism moderates the association between basal testosterone and ge...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  40. Koronavirüs Pandemisinde Kaygı ve Stokçuluk: Sosyal Değer Yönelimi ve ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  41. Being Negatively Cued, are People Less Cooperative? The Influence of W...
    Go to citation Crossref Google ScholarPub Med
  42. Expectation of others' cooperation, efficacy beliefs, and willingness ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  43. Social value orientation and conditional cooperation in the online one...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  44. People’s dispositional cooperative tendencies towards robots are unaff...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  45. Compensate others or protect oneself ? The difference of the effects o...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  46. Your Data are (Not) My Data: The Role of Social Value Orientation in S...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  47. Prosocial village leaders and the resettlement outcomes of land-lost f...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  48. Beyond Reciprocity: Forgiveness, Generosity, and Punishment in Continu...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  49. Empathy and teachers’ fairness behavior: The mediating role of moral o...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  50. Relationships between Green Space Attendance, Perceived Crowdedness, P...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  51. Revisiting Social Value Orientations and Environmental Attitude–Identi...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  52. How conjoint analysis contributes to mitigating intergroup conflict? a...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  53. Evaluating Benefits, Costs, and Social Value as Predictors of Gratitud...
    Go to citation Crossref Google ScholarPub Med
  54. Neuroscientific approaches to study prosociality
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  55. Cognitive and affective processes of prosociality
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  56. Examining Consequentialist Punishment Motives in One-Shot Social Dilem...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  57. Cattle farmer psychosocial profiles and their association with control...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  58. The role of social value orientation on delay discounting in a group c...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  59. The Role of Guilt and Empathy on Prosocial Behavior
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  60. Links between types of value orientations and consumer behaviours. An ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  61. (Mis)perceiving cooperativeness
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  62. Cooperation and Confrontation in Intergroup Interaction Based on the P...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  63. Finally Back to Campus? Motivations for Facemask Adoption in the Highe...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  64. The Description-Experience Gap in Cooperation
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  65. Are there sex differences in trust levels?
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  66. Social preferences correlate with cortical thickness of the orbito-fro...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  67. Understanding the Effects of Trust and Conflict Event Criticality on C...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  68. Sociology and psychology in public health
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  69. Respawn, Reload, Relate
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  70. Comparing the Slider Measure of Social Value Orientation with Its Main...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  71. The Development of Prosociality: Evidence for a Negative Association b...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  72. Expectation of Selfishness From Others in Borderline Personality Disor...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  73. The economic psychology of creating and venturing: a comparative behav...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  74. Do non-choice data reveal economic preferences? Evidence from biometri...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  75. Social value orientation modulates fairness processing during social d...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  76. Is stress good for negotiation outcomes? The moderating effect of soci...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  77. Enhancing Business Schools’ Pedagogy on Sustainable Business Practices...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  78. Antecedents and consequences of brand ownership: moderating roles of s...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  79. An Integrative Definition and Framework to Study Gossip
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  80. Stockpiling during the COVID-19 pandemic as a real-life social dilemma...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  81. Repeated Interaction and Its Impact on Cooperation and Surplus Allocat...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  82. The effect of conformity tendency on prosocial behaviors
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  83. Nationality dominates gender in decision-making in the Dictator and Pr...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  84. Interdependence approaches to the person and the situation
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  85. When is happy also prosocial? The relationship between happiness and s...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  86. The “right-to-refuse-service” paradox: Other customers’ perception of ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  87. Sex differences in trust and trustworthiness: A meta-analysis of the t...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  88. Children avoid inefficient but fair partners in a cooperative game
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  89. Greater effects of mutual cooperation and defection on subsequent coop...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  90. Sustainable Development of Entrepreneurial Orientation through Social ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  91. Testing a fine is a price in the lab
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  92. Gender, Social Value Orientation, and Tax Compliance
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  93. A Game Mechanism of Individual Value Decision-Making Based on SVO Diff...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  94. The Roles of Social Value Orientation and Anticipated Emotions in Inte...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  95. Vaccination as a social contract
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  96. Able but Unwilling to Enforce: Cooperative Dilemmas in Group Lending
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  97. Street‐Level Bureaucrats’ Social Value Orientation On an...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  98. Cooperation in Groups of Different Sizes: The Effects of Punishment an...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  99. Pain and sharing: A re-examination of the findings of Bastian, Jetten,...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  100. Do Perceiver Effects in Interpersonal Perception Predict Cooperation i...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  101. Visiting Intangible Cultural Heritage Tourism Sites: From Value Cognit...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  102. The influences of social value orientation and domain knowledge on cro...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  103. Social behavior for autonomous vehicles
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  104. Acute hunger does not always undermine prosociality
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  105. You watch my back, I'll watch yours: Emergence of collective risk moni...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  106. A flexible z-Tree and oTree implementation of the Social Value Orienta...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  107. Minimizing inequality versus maximizing joint gains: On the relation b...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  108. Cooperation in the Prisoner’s Dilemma: an experimental comparison betw...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  109. Individual solutions to shared problems create a modern tragedy of the...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  110. How Consistent Contributors Inspire Individuals to Cooperate: The Role...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  111. Inspired to Lend a Hand? Attempts to Elicit Prosocial Behavior Through...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  112. Hierarchy, Power, and Strategies to Promote Cooperation in Social Dile...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  113. How do we decide when (not) to free-ride? Risk tolerance predicts beha...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  114. The Ultimatum Heuristic in Mixed-Motive Noncooperative Games
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  115. Testing a Fine Is a Price in the Lab
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  116. Beliefs about others’ intentions determine whether cooperation is the ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  117. Social Value Orientation and Endorsement of Horizontal and Vertical In...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  118. Social learning in repeated cooperation games in uncertain environment...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  119. Green, greener, greenest: Can competition increase sustainable behavio...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  120. With or against Each Other? The Influence of a Virtual Agent’s (Non)co...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  121. Costs, needs, and integration efforts shape helping behavior toward re...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  122. Continued Quality, Openness, and Curiosity at the European Journal of ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  123. Able but Unwilling to Enforce: Cooperative Dilemmas in Group Lending
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:

EAPP members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.

MEMBERSHIP LOGIN

EAPP members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.

MEMBERSHIP LOGIN

Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

Start 2 week free trial
Need help?

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub

Full Text

View Full Text
View full text|Download PDF

Also from Sage