Research suggests that contribution to public goods (i.e. cooperation) will increase when groups use sanctions. We argue that when groups use rewards and punishments to induce members to cooperate in a social dilemma, individuals' natural propensity to cooperate may be reduced. Results from two laboratory experiments provide consistent support for our hypothesis. Specifically, we found that cooperation (in groups that adopted sanctioning systems, including both reward and punishment) decreased significantly following the removal of sanctioning systems. We also found that a moral appeal to cooperate was as effective as sanctions in inducing cooperation. Moreover, cooperation induced through appeals was more likely to sustain than that induced through sanctions. We found that people's trust in others' cooperation mediated the relationship between the use of sanctions and appeals and the level of cooperation after these inducing practices were removed. Implications of these results are discussed in the group and organizational context.
Albanese, R., & Van Fleet, D.D. (1985). Rational behavior in groups: The free-riding tendency. Academy of Management Review, 10, 244-255.
2.
Andreoni, J., Hardbaugh, W., & Vesterlund, L. (2003). The carrot or the stick: Rewards, punishment, and cooperation. American Economic Review , 93, 893-902.
3.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
4.
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.
5.
Caldwell, M.D. (1976). Communication and sex effects in five-person prisoner's dilemma game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 33, 273-280.
6.
Cummings, L.L., & Bromily, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory (OTI): Development and validation. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations (pp. 302-330). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
7.
Dawes, R.M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169-193.
8.
Fehr, E., & Gachter, S. (1999). Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. Mimeo: Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich.
George, J.M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 191-202.
11.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
12.
Jones, E.E., & Davis, K.E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 220-226). New York: Academic Press.
13.
Jones, E.E., Davis, K.E., & Gergen, K.E. (1961). Role playing variations and their informational value for person perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 302-310.
14.
Kelly, H.H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 192-238). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
15.
Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 183-214.
16.
Komorita, S. S. (1987). Cooperative choice in decomposed social dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 53-63. Komorita, S. S., & Parks, C. D. (1995). Interpersonal relations: Mixed-motive interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 183-207.
17.
Maki, J.E., Hoffman, D.M., & Berk, R.A. (1978). A time series analysis of the impact of a water conservation campaign. Evaluation Quarterly, 2, 107-118.
18.
Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J.K. (2002). The effects of contracts on interpersonal trust. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 534-559.
19.
McCusker, C., & Carnevale, P.J. (1995). Framing in resource dilemmas: Loss aversion and the moderating effects of sanctions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 190-201.
20.
Messick, D.M., & McClintock, C.G. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 4, 1-25.
21.
Miles, J.A., & Greenberg, J. (1993). Using punishment threats to attenuate social loafing effects among swimmers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 246-265.
22.
Mulder, L.B., van Dijk, E., De Cremer, D., & Wilke, H.A.M. (2006). Undermining trust and cooperation: The paradox of sanctioning systems in social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 147-162.
23.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
Pearce, J.L., Bigley, G.A., & Branyiczki, I. (1998). Procedural justice as modernism: Placing industrial/organisational psychology in context. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 371-396.
25.
Pearce, J.L., Branyiczki, I., & Bigley, G.A. (2000). Insufficient bureaucracy: Trust and commitment in particularistic organizations. Organization Science, 11, 148-162.
26.
Pillutla, M., & Chen, X.P. (1999). Social norms and cooperation in social dilemmas: The effects of context and feedback. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 81-103.
27.
Platt, J. (1973). Social traps. American Psychologist , 28, 641-651.
28.
Pruitt, D.G., & Kimmel, M.J. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and suggestions for the future. Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 363-392.
29.
Thibaut, J.W., & Riecken, H.W. (1955). Some determinants and consequences of the perception of social causality, Journal of Personality, 24, 113-133.
30.
Titmuss, R.M. (1970). The gift relationship. London : Allen and Unwin.
31.
Winett, R.A., Kagel, J.H., Battalio, R.C., & Winkler, R.C. (1978). The effects of monetary rebates, feedback, and information on residential energy conservation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 73-80.
32.
Yamagishi, T. (1986). The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 110-116.
33.
Yamagishi, T. (1988). Seriousness of social dilemmas and the provision of a sanctioning system. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 32-34.
