Abstract
In a social dilemma, group members have equal access to collective resources, but each must decide between acting in self-interested or collectively interested ways when considering their contribution to the group. Our research focused on how the perceived fairness of contributions and outcomes affects these decisions. We report on an experiment that manipulated two factors related to fairness: dilemma-framing that emphasized either individual or collective gains, and whether the partner’s relative contribution was high, low, or equal to the subject’s. Also, subjects’ social value orientations—individualist vs. prosocial—were balanced across conditions. Subjects made two rounds of contribution decisions and received feedback on their outcomes after each. As hypothesized for first-round contributions, prosocials contributed more to public goods and framing had no discernable effect. In the second round, neither social value orientation nor framing influenced participants’ fairness evaluations when partners made a low initial contribution to the group, but dilemma-framing affected participants’ fairness evaluations when the partner made a high contribution to the group. Importantly, results generally supported key hypotheses for participants’ attempts to rectify injustices via subsequent contributions and bonus sharing. Partner’s contributions, social value orientation, and dilemma-framing all affected redistributive behaviors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The SVO categorization also may include competitors who prefer to maximize their own outcome at other participants’ expense, and altruists who prefer to maximize other participants’ outcomes at their own expense. We have opted for the two-category version for the sake of simplicity.
As suggested by an anonymous reviewer, we reanalyzed the data using a full model, with contributions 1 and 2 treated as a repeated measure and all main and two-way interactions included. The ANOVA result was significant for the main effects of SVO and partner’s contribution in the between-subject factorial model and significant for the main effect of partner’s contribution and SVO-framing interaction for the within-subject test. Although results were consistent, our analysis more directly tested the theoretical-derived claim that predictable alterations in contributions from the first to the second trial occur in response to perceived (un)fairness in the first trial. The two trials were thus non-independent by design, in violation of assumptions for the suggested repeated-trials ANOVA.
The means and standard deviations tables for each dependent variable are available upon request.
We equalized the numbers of prosocials and individualists across the Community and Stock Market Studies, and the program randomly assigned participants to a high or low condition automatically. However, we could not equalize the numbers for all contribution conditions because participants’ first contribution was beyond our control. Therefore, we categorized those assigned to a low condition and contributed the lowest possible amount, i.e., zero, and those assigned to a high condition and gave the highest possible amount, i.e., 20 as an equal condition.
The fairness evaluation for self did not correlate well with the other three items and was dropped from the scale. It is possible that when individuals overly benefit from the interaction, they tended to avoid judging themselves as unfair. This means that self-serving bias may alter an individual’s justice judgments unreliably (Cook & Hegtvedt, 1986; Diekmann et al., 1997; Hegtvedt, 1992; Messick, 1995).
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040968
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
Allison, P. D. (1990). Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis. Sociological Methodology, 20, 93–114. https://doi.org/10.2307/271083
Allison, S. T., McQueen, L. R., & Schaerfl, L. M. (1992). Social decision making processes and the equal partitionment of shared resources. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(92)90030-N
Anderson, W. D., & Patterson, M. L. (2008). Effects of social value orientations on fairness judgments. Journal of Social Psychology, 148(2), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.148.2.223-246
Austin, W., & Walster, E. (1974). Reactions to confirmations and disconfirmations of expectancies of equity and inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(2), 208–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036622
Balliet, D., Parks, C., & Joireman, J. (2009). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12(4), 533–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209105040
Batson, C. D., & Moran, T. (1999). Empathy-induced Altruism in a Prisoner’s Dilemma. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 909–924. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199911)29:7%3c909::AID-EJSP965%3e3.0.CO;2-L
Bernold, E., Gsottbauer, E., Ackermann, K. A., & Murphy, R. O. (2015). Social framing and cooperation: The roles and interaction of preferences and beliefs. SSRN Electronic J., 1–26. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2557927
Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-8263-3
Brandts, J., & Schwieren, C. (2009). Frames and economic behavior: An experimental study. Retrieved October 2, 2017 from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brandts,%20J.,%20Schwieren,%20C.,%202009.%20Frames%20and%20economic%20behavior:%20An%20experimental%20study.%20Mimeo,%20Universitat%20Aut%C3%B2noma%20de%20Barcelona
Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity and compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 151–192). McGraw-Hill.
Columbus, S., Münich, J., & Gerpott, F. H. (2020). Playing a different game: Situation perception mediates framing effects on cooperative behaviour. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 90, 104006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104006
Cook, K. S., & Hegtvedt, K. A. (1986). Justice and power: An exchange analysis. In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 19–41). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5059-0_2
Cook, K. S., & Hegtvedt, K. A. (1983). Distributive justice, equity, and equality. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 217–241. Retrieved October 10, 2012 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2946064
Cubitt, R. P., Drouvelis, M., & Gächter, S. (2011). Framing and free riding: Emotional responses and punishment in social dilemma games. Experimental Economics, 14(2), 254–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-010-9266-0
Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.001125
De Cremer, D. (2002). Respect and cooperation in social dilemmas: The importance of feeling included. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10), 1335–1341. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702236830
De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2009). Paying for sanctions in social dilemmas: The effects of endowment asymmetry and accountability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.01.004
De Cremer, D., & Van Vugt, M. (1999). Social identification effects in social dilemmas: A transformation of motives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 871–893. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199911)29:7%3c871::AID-EJSP962%3e3.0.CO;2-I
De Kwaadsteniet, E. W., Van Dijk, E., Wit, A., & De Cremer, D. (2006). Social dilemmas as strong versus weak situations: Social value orientations and tacit coordination under resource size uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.06.004
De Kwaadsteniet, E. W., Van Dijk, E., Wit, A., & De Cremer, D. (2010). Anger and retribution after collective overuse: The role of blaming and environmental uncertainty in social dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209352192
Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social-psychological perspective. Yale University Press.
Diekmann, K. A., Samuels, S. M., Ross, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1997). Self-interest and fairness in problems of resource allocation: Allocators versus recipients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1061–1074. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1061
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1995). Impact of social values orientations on negotiator cognition and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1178–1188. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672952111006
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(5), 1093–1106. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.5.1093
Dufwenberg, M., Gächter, S., & Hennig-Schmidt, H. (2011). The framing of games and the psychology of play. Games and Economic Behavior, 73(2), 459–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2011.02.003
Eiser, R. J., & Bhavnani, K.-K. (1974). The effect of situational meaning on the behaviour of subjects in the prisoner’s dilemma game. European Journal of Social Psychology, 4(1), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420040108
Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., Mollerstrom, J., & Munkhammar, S. (2012). Social framing effects: Preferences or beliefs? Games and Economic Behavior, 76(1), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2012.05.007
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 7(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1038/415137a
Ganegoda, D. B., & Folger, R. (2015). Framing effects in justice perceptions: Prospect theory and counterfactuals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 126, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.10.002
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications. Retrieved September 12, 2015 from https://books.google.com/books?id=8YX2QwGgD8AC
Hegtvedt, K. A. (1992). Bargaining for justice: A means to resolve competing justice claims. Social Justice Research, 5(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048705
Hegtvedt, K. A., & Johnson, C. (2009). Power and justice: Toward an understanding of legitimacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 376–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209338798
Hegtvedt, K. A. (2006). Justice frameworks. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 49–69). Stanford University Press.
Jasso, G. (1978). On the justice of earnings: A new specification of the justice evaluation function. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1398–1419. https://doi.org/10.1086/226706
Jasso, G. (1980). A new theory of distributive justice. American Sociological Review, 45, 3–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095239
Jasso, G. (1983). Fairness of individual rewards and fairness of the reward distribution: Specifying the inconsistency between the micro and macro principles of justice. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46(3), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033790
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 66(3), 497–527. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Kay, A. C., & Ross, L. (2003). The perceptual push: The interplay of implicit cues and explicit situational construals on behavioral intentions in the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 634–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00057-X
Kollock, P. (1998). Social Dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 183–214. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.183
Komorita, S. S., & Parks, C. D. (1996). Social dilemmas. Westview.
Liberman, V., Samuels, S. M., & Ross, L. (2004). The name of the game: Predictive power of reputations versus situational labels in determining prisoner’s dilemma game moves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(OCTOBER), 2004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264004
Markovsky, B. (1985). Toward a multilevel distributive justice theory. American Sociological Review, 50(6), 822–839. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095506
Markovsky, B. (1988). Anchoring justice. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786920
Markovsky, B., & Nick B. (2012). Resource types and fairness perceptions in social dilemmas. In K. Tornblom & A. Kazemi (Eds.,) Handbook of social resource theory: Theoretical extensions, empirical insights, and social applications. (pp. 199–213). Sage Pub.
Messick, D. M. (1995). Equality, fairness, and social conflict. Social Justice Research, 8(2), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02334689
Messick, D. M., Allison, S. T., & Samuelson, C. D. (1988). Framing and communication effects on group members’ responses to environmental and social uncertainty. In S. Maital (Ed.), Applied behavioral economics (Vol. 2, pp. 677–700). New York University.
Shinada, M., & Yamagishi, T. (2007). Punishing free riders: Direct and indirect promotion of cooperation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(5), 330–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.04.001
Simpson, B. (2004). Social values, subjective transformations, and cooperation in social dilemmas. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(4), 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250406700404
Simpson, B., & Willer, R. (2008). Altruism and indirect reciprocity: The interaction of person and situation in prosocial behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250807100106
Smeesters, D., Warlop, L., Van Avermaet, E., Corneille, O., & Yzerbyt, V. (2003). 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(5), 972–987. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.972
Sonnemans, J., Schram, A., & Offerman, T. (1998). Public good provision and public bad prevention: The effect of framing. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 34(1), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(97)00042-5
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(6), 767–783. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.276
Stouten, J., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2006). Violating equality in social Dilemmas: Emotional and retributive reactions as a function of trust, attribution, and honesty. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 894–906. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206287538
Stouten, J., De Cremer, D., & Van Dijk, E. (2009). Behavioral (in)tolerance of equality violation in social dilemmas: When trust affects contribution decisions after violations of equality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(4), 517–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209105048
Sweeney, P. D. (1990). Distributive justice and pay satisfaction: A field test of an equity theory prediction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 4(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01125243
Törnblom, K. (1992). The social psychology of distributive justice. In K. R. Scherer (Ed.), Justice: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 177–236). Cambridge University Press.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
Van Dijk, E., & Wilke, H. (1995). Coordination rules in asymmetric social dilemmas: a comparison between public good dilemmas and resource dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1995.1001
Van Dijk, E., & Wilke, H. (2000). Decision-induced focusing in social dilemmas: Give-some, keep-some, take-some and leave-some dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.92
Van Dijk, E., & Vermunt, R. (2000). Strategy and fairness in social decision making: Sometimes it pays to be powerless. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1392
Van Dijk, E., Wilke, H. Wilke, M., & Metman, L. (1999). What information do we use in social Dilemmas? Environmental uncertainty and the employment of coordination rules. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(2), 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1366
Van Dijk, E., De Cremer, D. & Handgraaf, M.J.J. (2004). Social value orientations and the strategic use of fairness in ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 697–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.03.002
Van Lange, P. A. M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (1994). Social value orientations and impressions of a Partner’s honesty and intelligence: A test of the might versus morality effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(1), 126–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.126
Van Lange, P. A. M., De Bruin, E. M. N., Otten, W. & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 733–746. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.733
Van Lange, P. A. M., & Messick, D.M. (1996). Psychological processes underlying cooperation in social dilemmas. In W. W. Gasparski, M. K. Mlicki, & B. H. Banathy (Eds.), Social agency: Dilemmas and education praxiology (Vol. 4, pp. 93–112). Transaction Pub.
Van Lange, P. A. M., Balliet, D., Parks, C. D. & Van Vugt, M. (2014). Social dilemmas: The psychology of human cooperation. Oxford University Press.
Van Lange, P. A. M., & Liebrand, W. B. G. (1991). 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
Van Vugt, M., & De Cremer, D. (1999). Leadership in social dilemmas: The effects of group identification on collective actions to provide public goods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 587–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.587
Van Vugt, M., Jepson, S. P., Hart, C. M., & De Cremer, D. (2004). Autocratic leadership in social dilemmas: A threat to group stability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00061-1
Walster, E., Walster, G., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity Theory and Research. Allyn & Bacon.
Weber, J. M., Kopelman, S., & Messick, D. M. (2004). A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_4
Wenzel, M. (2002). What is social about justice? Inclusive identity and group values as the basis of the justice motive. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(3), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1501
Wenzel, M. (2004). Social identification as a determinant of concerns about individual-, group-, and inclusive-level justice. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(1), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250406700107
Willer, R. (2009). Groups reward individual sacrifice: The status solution to the collective action problem. American Sociological Review, 74(February), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400102
Willer, R., Flynn, F. J., & Zak, S. (2012). Structure, identity, and solidarity: A comparative field study of generalized and direct exchange. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(1), 119–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212448626
Willinger, M., & Ziegelmeyer, A. (1999). Framing and cooperation in public good games: An experiment with an interior solution. Economics Letters, 65(3), 323–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(99)00177-9
Wolff, C., & Keith, N. (2019). Motives relate to cooperation in social dilemmas but have an inconsistent association with leadership evaluation. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45931-4
Xu, A. J., Rodas, M. A., & Torelli, C. J. (2020). Generosity without borders: The iteractive effect of spatial distance and donation goals on charitable giving. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 161(January), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.01.007
Yamagishi, T. (1986). The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.110
Yamagishi, T. (1995). Social dilemmas. In K. S. Cook, G. A. Fine & J. S. House (Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 311–335). Allyn & Bacon.
Yamagishi, T., & Cook, K. S. (1993). Generalized exchange and social dilemmas. Social Psychology Quarterly, 56(4), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.2307/2786661
Acknowledgements
We thank Brent Simpson, David Melamed, and Shane Thye for helpful comments on an earlier draft.
Funding
This research was supported by a dissertation research grant to the first author from the Sociology Department at the University of South Carolina.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Atilgan, H., Markovsky, B. Framing Perceptions of Justice in a Public Goods Dilemma. Soc Just Res 34, 373–396 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-021-00379-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-021-00379-8