We investigate a new give-or-take-some (GOTS) dilemma paradigm that merges traditional give-some and take-some dilemmas. In this hybrid social dilemma, individuals can choose to give or to take resources from a shared resource pool. Previous empirical work by McCarter, Budescu, and Scheffran (2011) found that the composition of the group and the individuals’ endowments influenced their tendency to give and/or take. We reanalyze results from two experiments from McCarter, Budescu, et al. (2011) using the new paradigm and propose a simple model of individual behavior based on the players’ perceptions of their relative standing in the group and their perception of fair allocations. We also use these data to fit the model at the individual level and use it to provide a general framework for interpreting the group results.
AuW.BudescuD. V. (1999). Sequential effects in give-some and take-some social dilemmas. In FoddyM.SmithsonM.SchneiderS.HoggM. (Eds.), Resolving social dilemmas: Dynamic, structural, and intergroup aspects (pp. 87–99). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
2.
AuW.NgaiM. Y. (2003). Effects of group size uncertainty and protocol of play in a common pool resource dilemma. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(3), 265–283.
3.
BadenJ. A. (1998). Communitarianism and the logic of the commons. In BadenJ. A.NoonanD. S. (Eds.), Managing the commons (pp. 135–153). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
4.
BudescuD. V.AuW.ChenX.-P. (1997). Effects of protocol of play and social-value orientation on behavior in sequential resource dilemmas. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 69, 179–194.
5.
CrossJ. G.GuyerM. J. (1980). Social traps. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
6.
DawesR. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169–193.
7.
DawesR. M.McTavishJ.ShakleeH. (1977). Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people’s behavior in a commons dilemma situation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–11.
8.
DawesR. M.MessickD. M. (2000). Social dilemmas. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 111–116.
9.
GeddesJ. A. (1924). The United Order among the Mormons. Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret News Press.
KahnemanD.KnetschJ. L.ThalerR. H. (1991). The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.
12.
KollockP. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 183–214.
13.
LiebrandW. B. G. (1983). A classification of social dilemma games. Simulation & Games, 14(2), 123–138.
14.
LindahlW. E.ConleyA. T. (2002). Literature review: Philanthropic fundraising. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 13(1), 91–112.
15.
MannixE. A. (1991). Resource dilemmas and discount rates in decision making groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(4), 379–391.
16.
MarchJ. G. (1994). A primer of decision making: How decisions happen. New York, NY: Free Press.
17.
McCarterM. W.BudescuD. V.ScheffranJ. (2011). The give-or-take-some dilemma: An empirical investigation of a hybrid social dilemma. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 116(1), 83–95.
18.
McCarterM. W.MahoneyJ. T.NorthcraftG. B. (2011). Testing the waters: Using collective real options to manage the social dilemma of strategic alliances. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 621–640.
19.
McCarterM. W.NorthcraftG. B. (2007). Happy together?: Insights and implications of viewing managed supply chains as a social dilemma. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2), 498–511.
20.
McCarterM. W.RockmannK. W.NorthcraftG. B. (2010). Is it even worth it? The effect of loss prospects in the outcome distribution of a public goods dilemma. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 111(1), 1–11.
21.
MessickD. M. (1999). Alternative logics for decision making in social settings. Journal of Economic Behavioral Organization, 39(1), 11–28.
22.
MessickD. M.RutteC. G. (1992). The provision of public goods by experts: The Groningen study. In LiebrandW. B. G.MessickD. M.WilkeH. (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 101–107). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
23.
OlsonM. (1995). The logic of the collective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
RapoportA.BudescuD. V.SuleimanR. (1993). Sequential requests from randomly distributed shared resources. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 37(2), 241–265.
25.
RapoportA.BudescuD. V.SuleimanR.WegE. (1992). Social dilemmas with uniformly distributed resources. In LiebrandW. B. G.MessickD. M.WilkeH. A. M. (Eds.), Social dilemmas: Theoretical issues and research findings (pp. 41–55). London, UK: Pergamon Press.
26.
RapoportA.Eshed-LevyD. (1989). Provision of step-level public goods: Effects of greed and fear of being gypped. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 44(3), 325–344.
27.
RizzoJ. R.HouseR. J.LirtzmanS. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150–163.
28.
RutteC. G. (1990). Solving organizational social dilemmas. Social Behaviour, 5(4), 285–294.
29.
SchellingT. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
SchneiderS. K. (1989). Communications dilemmas: The effects of social categorization on communication networks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
31.
SuleimanR.BudescuD. V. (1999). Common pool resource (CPR) dilemmas with incomplete information. In BudescuD. V.ErevI.ZwickR. (Eds.), Games and human behavior: Essays in honor of Amnon Rapoport (pp. 387–410). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32.
SuleimanR.RapoportA.BudescuD. V. (1996). Fixed position and property rights in sequential resource dilemmas under uncertainty. Acta Psychologica, 93(1–3), 229–245.
33.
TenbrunselA. E.NorthcraftG. B. (2010). In the eye of the beholder: Payoff structures and decision frames in social dilemmas. In KramerR.TenbrunselA. E.BazermanM. H. (Eds.), Social decision making: Social dilemmas, social values, and ethical judgments (pp. 95–115). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
34.
Van DijkE.WilkeH. (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.
35.
Van DijkE.WilkeH. (2000). Decision-induced focusing in social dilemmas: Give-some, keep-some, take-some, and leave-some dilemmas. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 78(1), 92–104.
36.
Van DijkE.WilkeH.WilkeM.MetmanL. (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.
37.
Wade-BenzoniK. A.TenbrunselA. E.BazermanM. H. (1996). Egocentric interpretations of fairness in asymmetric, environmental social dilemmas: Explaining harvesting behavior and the role of communication. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 67(2), 111–126.
38.
WeberJ. M.KopelmanS.MessickD. M. (2004). A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 281–307.
39.
WitA.van DijkE.WilkeH.GroenenboomA. (2004). The interplay between environmental and social uncertainty in social dilemmas. In SuleimanR.BudescuD. V. (Eds.), Contemporary psychological research on social dilemmas (pp. 376–398). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40.
WitA.WilkeH. (1998). Public good provision under environmental and social uncertainty. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(2), 249–256.
41.
WrenD. A. (1967). Interface and interorganizational coordination. Academy of Management Journal, 10(1), 69–81.
42.
ZengM.ChenX.-P. (2003). Achieving cooperation in multiparty alliances: A social dilemma approach to partnership management. Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 587–605.
