1 / 17

Ingroup Cooperation and Trust: Two Models

Ingroup Cooperation and Trust: Two Models. Marilynn B. Brewer Ohio State University Sapporo, Japan September, 2003. Brewer & Kramer (1986). Effects of collective identity salience on cooperation in a resource dilemma: An anomaly. Resource Dilemma (Brewer & Kramer, 1986). S1. S5. S2.

mabli
Télécharger la présentation

Ingroup Cooperation and Trust: Two Models

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ingroup Cooperation and Trust: Two Models Marilynn B. Brewer Ohio State University Sapporo, Japan September, 2003

  2. Brewer & Kramer (1986) Effects of collective identity salience on cooperation in a resource dilemma: An anomaly

  3. Resource Dilemma(Brewer & Kramer, 1986) S1 S5 S2 S6 Resource Pool S7 S3 S4 S8 “Replenishment” rate = 0.9 – 1.1

  4. Resource Dilemma(Brewer & Kramer, 1986) S19 S10 S9 S1 S5 S14 S16 S2 S6 Resource Pool S20 S7 S3 S17 S15 S4 S8 S13 S11 S12

  5. Experimental Design • Group Size: 8 vs 32 • Framing: Conservation dilemma vs Contribution dilemma (public goods) • Identity salience: individual vs collective • Time (feedback) Phase 1: gradual depletion (14 trials) Phase 2: depletion crisis (6 trials)

  6. Results: Phase 1 First trial: Main effect of group size (Msmall= 13.15 vs Mlarge = 14.42) Main effect of framing(Mcons = 12.13 vs Mcont = 15.45) Across trial blocks: Slight decline in take, especially in public goods (contribution) condition

  7. Results: Phase 2 Contribution Frame Conservation Frame

  8. Some More Recent Theorizing

  9. Core Configurations (Caporael, 1997)

  10. Levels of Self-Representation(Brewer & Gardner, 1996)

  11. Two Models of Social Control • Reciprocal exchange relationships interpersonal trust; internal differentiation • Group-based collectivismdepersonalized loyalty to group as a whole; entification and boundedness

  12. A Nonintuitive Implication Individualism  Collectivism

  13. Some Evidence… • Americans score high on individualism but also on ingroup identification, value of belonging to groups (Oyserman et al., 2002; Yuki, 2003) • Gender differences in relational versus collective interdependence (Kashima et al., 1995; Gabriel & Gardner, 1999)

  14. Gender and Depersonalized Trust

  15. More Direct Evidence(Buchan, Croson, & Dawes, 2002)

  16. Social Value Orientation and the Ingroup Effect in Social Dilemmas(DeCremer & vanVugt, 1999) Ingroup Salience

  17. Brewer & Kramer Revisited…

More Related