Sosyal Değer Yönelimi ve Sosyal İkilemlerde İş Birliği: Düzenleyici Odağın ve Tanımlayıcı Normların Etkisi

Gokhan Karagonlar; Sevgi Emirza

doi:10.26650/SP2020-816761

Research Article

Sosyal Değer Yönelimi ve Sosyal İkilemlerde İş Birliği: Düzenleyici Odağın ve Tanımlayıcı Normların Etkisi

Year 2021, Volume: 41 Issue: 3, 991 - 1035, 31.12.2021

Gokhan Karagonlar , Sevgi Emirza

https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-816761

Abstract

Sosyal ikilemler bireysel çıkar ile topluluk çıkarının çeliştiği durumlar olarak ifade edilir. Bu çalışma, sosyal ikilemler yazınındaki önemli sorulardan biri olan, sosyal ikilem durumlarında bireyleri topluluk çıkarını kollamaya (iş birliğine) yönelten faktörler nelerdir sorusuna katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla, düzenleyici odak ve normatif davranışın odağı teorileri ve sosyal değer yönelimleri alan yazınından yola çıkılarak bireylerin sosyal değer yönelimlerinin, düzenleyici odak ve tanımlayıcı normlar ile etkileşimli olarak iş birliği davranışını etkileyeceği öngörülmüştür. Çalışmanın hipotezleri bir devlet üniversitesinden 289 öğrenci üzerinde bir mahkumun ikilemi deneyi ile test edilmiştir. Sosyal değer yönelimleri deneyden üç hafta önce ölçülmüş, düzenleyici odak (önleme ve yükselme) ve tanımlayıcı normlar (kontrol, bencil davranış normu ve iş birliği normu) manipüle edilmiştir. Bulgular, beklenen sosyal değer yönelimi ve düzenleyici odak etkileşiminin yalnızca erkekler için anlamlı olduğunu göstermiştir. Buna göre, yükselme odağına kıyasla önleme odağı aktifleştirilmiş toplum yanlısı erkekler daha düşük iş birliği davranışı göstermektedir. Ayrıca, tanımlayıcı normun bencil davranışa kıyasla iş birliğini işaret ettiği durumda toplum yanlısı bireylerin iş birliği davranışı artmıştır. Üç yönlü sosyal değer yönelimi, düzenleyici odak ve tanımlayıcı norm etkileşimi ise anlamlı bulunmamıştır. Bulgular, toplum yanlısı bireylerin iş birliği davranışının incelenen durumsal faktörlerden etkilendiğini, kendine yanlıların iş birliği davranışının ise değişmediğini göstermektedir. Buna göre, topluluk çıkarını düşünen bireylerin yüksek iş birliğinin sağlanması için bu durumsal faktörler göz önüne alınmalıdır. Bu çalışma, düzenleyici odak ve normatif davranışın odağı teorileri ile sosyal değer yönelimleri yazınını bütünleştirerek bireylerin sosyal ikilem durumlarındaki tercihlerini anlamaya çalışması bakımından alan yazına özgün katkıda bulunmaktadır. Ayrıca, bu çalışma Türkiye’de sosyal ikilem durumlarında düşük iş birliği davranışı gösterilmesini en azından kısmen açıklayabilecek teorik bir model sınayarak pratik katkı da sağlamaktadır.

Keywords

Sosyal değer yönelimi, iş birliği, düzenleyici odak, tanımlayıcı normlar

Supporting Institution

TÜBİTAK

Project Number

114K324

Thanks

Bu çalışma, TÜBİTAK (proje no: 114K324) tarafından desteklenen ve Dr. Gökhan Karagonlar’ın yürütücülüğünü üstlendiği bilimsel bir proje kapsamında gerçekleştirilmiştir

References

Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G. ve Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586-592. google scholar
Au, W. T. ve Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2004). Measurements and effects of social-value orientation in social dilemmas: A review. R. Suleiman, D. V. Budescu, I. Fischer ve D. M. Messick (Ed.), Contemporary psychological research on social dilemmas içinde (s. 71-98). USA: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
Aydın, M. Ş. (2021). 13-70 aylık çocuklarda prososyal davranışlar: Doğal gözlem çalışması. Psikoloji Çalışmaları -Studies in Psychology. Advance Online Publication google scholar
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. ve Nijstad, B. A. (2011). When prevention promotes creativity: The role of mood, regulatory focus, and regulatory closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 794-809. google scholar
Balliet, D., Parks, C. ve Joireman, J. (2009). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A Meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(4), 533-547. google scholar
Balliet, D. ve Van Lange, P. A. (2013). Trust, punishment, and cooperation across 18 societies: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 363-379. google scholar
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum google scholar
Bless, H., Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., Golisano, V., Rabe, C. ve Wölk, M. (1996). Mood and the use of scripts: Does a happy mood really lead to mindlessness?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 665-679. google scholar
Bogaert, S., Boone, C. ve Declerck, C. (2008). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A review and conceptual model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(3), 453-480. google scholar
Bogaert, S., Boone, C. ve van Witteloostuijn, A. (2012). Social value orientation and climate strength as moderators of the impact of work group cooperative climate on affective commitment. Journal of Management Studies, 49(5), 918-944. google scholar
Boone, C., Declerck, C. ve Kiyonari, T. (2010). Inducing cooperative behavior among proselfs versus prosocials: The moderating role of incentives and trust. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54(5), 799824. google scholar
Brizi, A., Giacomantonio, M., Schumpe, B. M. ve Mannetti, L. (2015). Intention to pay taxes or to avoid them: The impact of social value orientation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 50, 22-31. google scholar
Caldwell, M. D. (1976). Communication and sex effects in a five-person prisoner’s dilemma game. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 33, 273-80. google scholar
Camerer, C. F. (2011). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. USA: Princeton University Press. google scholar
Chen, X. P. ve Bachrach, D. G. (2003). Tolerance of free-riding: the effects of defection size, defection pattern, and social orientation in a repeated public goods dilemma. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 139-147. google scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105-109. google scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A. ve Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology içinde (s. 201-234). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. google scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R. ve Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026. google scholar
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G. ve Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple correlation/regression analysis for the behavioral sciences. England: Taylor & Francis. google scholar
Cooper, R., DeJong, D. V., Forsythe, R., & Ross, T. W. (1996). Cooperation without reputation: experimental evidence from prisoner’s dilemma games. Games and Economic Behavior, 12(2), 187-218. google scholar
Crowe, E. ve Higgins, E.T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117-132. google scholar
Çalık, T., Özbay, Y., Özer, A., Kurt, T. ve Kandemir, M. (2009). İlköğretim okulu öğrencilerinin zorbalık statülerinin okul iklimi, prososyal davranışlar, temel ihtiyaçlar ve cinsiyet değişkenlerine göre incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 60(60), 555-576. google scholar
Das, E., Kerkhof, P. ve Kuiper, J. (2008). Improving the effectiveness of fundraising messages: The impact of charity goal attainment, message framing, and evidence on persuasion. Journal ofApplied Communication Research, 36(2), 161-175. google scholar
Davis, J. J. (1995). The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 285-299. google scholar
Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review ofPsychology, 31(1), 169-193. google scholar
De Cremer, D. ve Van Lange, P. A. M. (2001). Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: The roles of social responsibility and reciprocity. European Journal ofPersonality, 15(1), 5-18. google scholar
Dovidio, J. F. (1984). Helping behavior and altruism: An empirical and conceptual overview. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 361-427. google scholar
Eisenberg, N. (1991). Meta-analytic contributions to the literature on prosocial behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(3), 273-282. google scholar
Eisenberg, N. ve Fabes, R. A. (1991). Prosocial behavior and empathy: A multimethod developmental perspective. M. S. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial behavior içinde (s. 34-61). Sage Publications, Inc. google scholar
Eisenberg, N. ve Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. W. Damon ve N. Eisenberg (Ed.), google scholar
Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development içinde (s. 701778). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. google scholar
Elliott, C. S. ve Hayward, D. M. (1998). The expanding definition of framing and its particular impact on economic experimentation. The Journal ofSocio-Economics, 27(2), 229-243. google scholar
Fairbairn, C. E. ve Sayette, M. A. (2013). The effect of alcohol on emotional inertia: A test of alcohol myopia. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 122(3), 770-781. google scholar
Fehr, E. ve Gachter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415(6868), 137-140. google scholar
Förster, J., Higgins, E. T. ve Bianco, A. T. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns?. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 148-164. google scholar
Friedman, R. S. ve Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1001-1013. google scholar
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M., ... ve Houlette, M. (1999). Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 388. google scholar
Gachter, S. ve Fehr, E. (1999). Collective action as a social exchange. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 39(4), 341-369. google scholar
Gino, F. ve Margolis, J. D. (2011). Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (un)ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 145-156. google scholar
Godinho, C. A., Updegraff, J. A., Alvarez, M. J. ve Lima, M. L. (2017). When is congruency helpful? Interactive effects of frame, motivational orientation, and perceived message quality on fruit and vegetable consumption. Journal of health communication, 22(12), 942-950. google scholar
Hayward, R. D. ve Kemmelmeier, M. (2007). How competition is viewed across cultures: A test of four theories. Cross-Cultural Research, 41(4), 364-395. google scholar
Herrmann, B., Thöni, C. ve Gachter, S. (2008). Antisocial punishment across societies. Science, 319(5868), 1362-1367. google scholar
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300. google scholar
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology içinde (s. 1-46). New York: Academic Press. google scholar
Higgins, E. T. (2012). Regulatory focus theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology. London: Sage London google scholar
Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N. ve Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 31(1), 3-23. google scholar
Higgins, E. T. ve Spiegel, S. (2004). Promotion and prevention strategies for self-regulation: A motivated cognition perspective. R. F. Baumeister ve K. D. Vohs (Ed), Handbook ofself-regulation: Research, theory, and applications içinde (s. 171-187). New York, NY: Guilford Press. google scholar
Idson, L. C., Liberman, N. ve Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 252-274. google scholar
Israel, S., Lerer, E., Shalev, I., Uzefovsky, F., Riebold, M., Laiba, E., ... ve Ebstein, R. P. (2009). The oxytocin receptor (OXTR) contributes to prosocial fund allocations in the dictator game and the social value orientations task. PloS One, 4(5), 1-10. google scholar
Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R. ve Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), 1002-1012. google scholar
Karagonlar, G. ve Kuhlman, D. M. (2013). The role of social value orientation in response to an unfair offer in the ultimatum game. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 228-239. google scholar
Karagonlar, G. ve Neves, P. (2020). No more Mr. Nice Guy: Social value orientation and abusive supervision. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(2), 85-99. google scholar
Keller, J. ve Pfattheicher, S. (2011). Vigilant self-regulation, cues of being watched and cooperativeness. European Journal of Personality, 25(5), 363-372. google scholar
Kelley, H. H. ve Stahelski, A. J. (1970). Social interaction basis of cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefs about others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(1), 66-91. google scholar
Kelley, H. H. ve Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley-Interscience. google scholar
Kiyonari, T., Yamagishi, T., Cook, K. S. ve Cheshire, C. (2006). Does trust beget trustworthiness? Trust and trustworthiness in two games and two cultures: A research note. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(3), 270-283. google scholar
Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 183-214. google scholar
Köbis, N. C., Van Prooijen, J. W., Righetti, F. ve Van Lange, P. A. (2015). “Who doesn’t?”—The impact of descriptive norms on corruption. PloS ONE, 10(6), e0131830. google scholar
Kuhlman, D. M., Camac, C. R. ve Cunha, D. A. (1986). Individual differences in social orientation. H. Wilke, D. Messick ve C. Rutte (Ed.), Experimental social dilemmas içinde (s. 151-176). New York: Verlag Peter Lang. google scholar
Kuhlman, D. M. ve 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(5), 922-931. google scholar
Kuhlman, D. M. ve Wimberley, D. L. (1976). Expectations of choice behavior held by cooperators, competitors, and individualists across four classes of experimental games. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(1), 69-81. google scholar
Latane, B. ve Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. google scholar
Liebrand, W. B. (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(3), 239-264. google scholar
Liebrand, W. B. ve 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(3), 217-230. google scholar
Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F. ve Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem.”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 42-55. google scholar
Maner, J. K., Luce, C. L., Neuberg, S. L., Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. ve Sagarin, B. J. (2002). The effects of perspective taking on motivations for helping: Still no evidence for altruism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(11), 1601-1610. google scholar
Martinsson, P., Villegas-Palacio, C. ve Wollbrant, C. (2015). Cooperation and social classes: Evidence from Colombia. Social Choice and Welfare, 45(4), 829-848. google scholar
Mayer, J. D. ve Gaschke, Y. N. (1988). The experience and meta-experience of mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(1), 102-111. google scholar
McClintock, C. G. ve Liebrand, W. B. (1988). Role of interdependence structure, individual value orientation, and another’s strategy in social decision making: A transformational analysis. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 55(3), 396-409. google scholar
Messick, D. M. ve McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 4(1), 1-25. google scholar
Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A. ve Handgraaf, M. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 771-781. google scholar
Nowak, M. A. ve Sigmund, K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437(7063), 1291-1298. google scholar
Omoto, A. M. ve Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 671. google scholar
Omoto, A. M. ve Snyder, M. (2002). Considerations of community: The context and process of volunteerism. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(5), 846-867. google scholar
Ortmann, A. ve Tichy, L. K. (1999). Gender differences in the laboratory: Evidence from prisoner’s dilemma games. Journal ofEconomic Behavior & Organization, 39(3), 327-339. google scholar
Parks, C. D., Joireman, J. ve Van Lange, P. A. (2013). Cooperation, trust, and antagonism: How public goods are promoted. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(3), 119-165. google scholar
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A. ve Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review ofPsychology, 56, 365-392. google scholar
Pfattheicher, S. ve Keller, J. (2013). Vigilant self-regulation and costly punishment in public goods situations. European Journal ofPersonality, 27(4), 346-354. google scholar
Pham, M. T. ve Avnet, T. (2009). Contingent reliance on the affect heuristic as a function of regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 267-278. google scholar
Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Cöte, S., Cheng, B. H. ve Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 771-784. google scholar
Piliavin, J. A. ve Charng, H. W. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual Review ofSociology, 16(1), 27-65. google scholar
Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L. ve Clark, R. D. III. (1981). Emergency intervention. New York: Academic Press. google scholar
Pletzer, J. L., Balliet, D., Joireman, J., Kuhlman, D. M., Voelpel, S. C. ve Van Lange, P. A. (2018). Social value orientation, expectations, and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. European Journal ofPersonality, 32(1), 62-83. google scholar
Pruitt, D. G. ve Kimmel, M. J. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and suggestions for the future. Annual Review ofPsychology, 28(1), 363-392. google scholar
Rothman, A. J. ve Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3-19. google scholar
Schwartz, S. H. ve Howard, J. A. (1982). Helping and cooperation: A self-based motivational model. V. J. Derlega, J. Grzelak (Ed.), Cooperation and helping behavior içinde (s. 327-353). New York: Academic press. google scholar
Seguino, S., Stevens, T. ve Lutz, M. (1996). Gender and cooperative behavior: Economic man rides alone. Feminist Economics, 2(1), 1-21. google scholar
Sell, J. (1997). Gender, strategies, and contributions to public goods. Social Psychology Quarterly 60, 252-65. google scholar
Simpson, B. (2003). Sex, fear, and greed: A social dilemma analysis of gender and cooperation. Social Forces, 82(1), 35-52. google scholar
Staub, E. 2002. Emergency helping, genocidal violence, and the evolution of responsibility and altruism in children. R.J. Davidson ve A. Harrington (Ed)., Visions of compassion: Western scientists and Tibetan buddhists examine human nature içinde (s. 165-81). London: Oxford Univ. Press google scholar
Staunton, M., Louis, W. R., Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J. ve McDonald, R. I. (2014). How negative descriptive norms for healthy eating undermine the effects of positive injunctive norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(4), 319-330. google scholar
Stockard, J., Van De Kragt, A. J. ve Dodge, P. J. (1988). Gender roles and behavior in social dilemmas: Are there sex differences in cooperation and in its justification?. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(2), 154-163. google scholar
Tice, D. M., Bratslavsky, E. ve Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Emotional distress regulation takes precedence over impulse control: If you feel bad, do it!. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 53-67. google scholar Tversky, A. ve Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. google scholar
Tversky, A. ve Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59(1), 251-278. google scholar
Uskul, A. K., Sherman, D. K. ve Fitzgibbon, J. (2009). The cultural congruency effect: Culture, regulatory focus, and the effectiveness of gain-vs. loss-framed health messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 535-541. google scholar
Van Andel, C. E., Tybur, J. M. ve Van Lange, P. A. (2016). Donor registration, college major, and prosociality: Differences among students of economics, medicine and psychology. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 277-283. google scholar
Van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K. ve Van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological science, 15(1), 71-74. 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(2), 337-349. google scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., Bekkers, R., Schuyt, T. N. M. ve Van Vugt, M. V. (2007). From games to giving: Social value orientation predicts donations to noble causes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(4), 375-384. google scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., De Bruin, E., Otten, W. ve 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. google scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D. ve Van Dijk, E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 125-141. google scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M. ve 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(1), 126-141. google scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M. ve Rusbult, C. E. (2012). Interdependence theory. P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski ve E. T. Higgins (Ed.), Handbook of theories of social psychology içinde (s. 251-272). London: Sage London. google scholar
Vugt, M. V., Cremer, D. D. ve Janssen, D. P. (2007). Gender differences in cooperation and competition: The male-warrior hypothesis. Psychological science, 18(1), 19-23. google scholar
Van Vugt, V. M., Meertens, R. M. ve 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(3), 258-278. google scholar
Wan, E. W., Hong, J. ve Sternthal, B. (2009). The effect of regulatory orientation and decision strategy on brand judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 1026-1038. google scholar
Yaban, H. (2017). Ergenler ve beliren yetişkinlerde sosyal değer yöneliminin gelişimsel, sosyal-bilişsel ve bağlamsal bir model çerçevesinde incelenmesi (Doktora Tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara, Türkiye. google scholar
Yamagishi, T., Mifune, N., Li, Y., Shinada, M., Hashimoto, H., Horita, Y., ... ve Takagishi, H. (2013). Is behavioral pro-sociality game-specific? Pro-social preference and expectations of pro-sociality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 260-271. google scholar
Yener, S. (2017). Psikolojik rahatlık algısının işgören sesliliği ve takım işbirliği arasındaki ilişkide aracı değişken rolü. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(2), 187-204. google scholar
Yeşiltaş, M., Kanten, P. ve Sormaz, Ü. (2013). Otantik liderlik tarzının prososyal hizmet davranışları üzerindeki etkisi: Konaklama işletmelerine yönelik bir uygulama. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business Administration, 42(2), 333-350. google scholar

Social Value Orientation and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: The Effects of Regulatory Focus and Descriptive Norms

Year 2021, Volume: 41 Issue: 3, 991 - 1035, 31.12.2021

Gokhan Karagonlar , Sevgi Emirza

https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-816761

Abstract

Social dilemmas (SDs) refer to situations where self and collective interests conflict. This study aims to contribute to an important question in the SD literature: “what are the factors that lead individuals to protect the collective interests (to cooperate) in SDs?”. Based on the regulatory focus theory, the focus theory of normative conduct, and the literature on social value orientation (SVO), it was hypothesized that SVO would interact with regulatory focus and descriptive norms to influence cooperation in a SD. Using a prisoner’s dilemma game (PDG), hypotheses were tested on 289 participants from a public university. SVO was measured three weeks prior to the PDG, while regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention) and descriptive norms (control vs. self-interest vs. cooperation) were manipulated during the experiment. Compared with promotion focus, prevention focus activation was observed to lead to lower cooperation among prosocial men. Moreover, prosocials had higher cooperation when descriptive norms signaled cooperative behavior rather than selfish behavior. SVO x regulatory focus x descriptive norms interaction was insignificant. These findings suggest that individuals with prosocial, but not with proself motivation, are influenced by these situational factors. Thus, policymakers should consider these factors to ensure the high cooperation of prosocial individuals. Integrating regulatory focus theory, focus theory of normative conduct, and the literature on SVO, this study makes a unique contribution to the literature as it attempts to enhance the understanding of the preferences of individuals in SDs. Furthermore, this study provides a practical contribution by testing a theoretical model that can at least partially explain the low cooperative behavior in SD situations in Turkey

Keywords

Social value orientation, cooperation, regulatory focus, descriptive norms

Project Number

114K324

References

Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G. ve Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586-592. google scholar
Au, W. T. ve Kwong, J. Y. Y. (2004). Measurements and effects of social-value orientation in social dilemmas: A review. R. Suleiman, D. V. Budescu, I. Fischer ve D. M. Messick (Ed.), Contemporary psychological research on social dilemmas içinde (s. 71-98). USA: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
Aydın, M. Ş. (2021). 13-70 aylık çocuklarda prososyal davranışlar: Doğal gözlem çalışması. Psikoloji Çalışmaları -Studies in Psychology. Advance Online Publication google scholar
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. ve Nijstad, B. A. (2011). When prevention promotes creativity: The role of mood, regulatory focus, and regulatory closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5), 794-809. google scholar
Balliet, D., Parks, C. ve Joireman, J. (2009). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A Meta-analysis. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(4), 533-547. google scholar
Balliet, D. ve Van Lange, P. A. (2013). Trust, punishment, and cooperation across 18 societies: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 363-379. google scholar
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum google scholar
Bless, H., Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., Golisano, V., Rabe, C. ve Wölk, M. (1996). Mood and the use of scripts: Does a happy mood really lead to mindlessness?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 665-679. google scholar
Bogaert, S., Boone, C. ve Declerck, C. (2008). Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A review and conceptual model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(3), 453-480. google scholar
Bogaert, S., Boone, C. ve van Witteloostuijn, A. (2012). Social value orientation and climate strength as moderators of the impact of work group cooperative climate on affective commitment. Journal of Management Studies, 49(5), 918-944. google scholar
Boone, C., Declerck, C. ve Kiyonari, T. (2010). Inducing cooperative behavior among proselfs versus prosocials: The moderating role of incentives and trust. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 54(5), 799824. google scholar
Brizi, A., Giacomantonio, M., Schumpe, B. M. ve Mannetti, L. (2015). Intention to pay taxes or to avoid them: The impact of social value orientation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 50, 22-31. google scholar
Caldwell, M. D. (1976). Communication and sex effects in a five-person prisoner’s dilemma game. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 33, 273-80. google scholar
Camerer, C. F. (2011). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. USA: Princeton University Press. google scholar
Chen, X. P. ve Bachrach, D. G. (2003). Tolerance of free-riding: the effects of defection size, defection pattern, and social orientation in a repeated public goods dilemma. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 139-147. google scholar
Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105-109. google scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A. ve Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology içinde (s. 201-234). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. google scholar
Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R. ve Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015-1026. google scholar
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G. ve Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple correlation/regression analysis for the behavioral sciences. England: Taylor & Francis. google scholar
Cooper, R., DeJong, D. V., Forsythe, R., & Ross, T. W. (1996). Cooperation without reputation: experimental evidence from prisoner’s dilemma games. Games and Economic Behavior, 12(2), 187-218. google scholar
Crowe, E. ve Higgins, E.T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117-132. google scholar
Çalık, T., Özbay, Y., Özer, A., Kurt, T. ve Kandemir, M. (2009). İlköğretim okulu öğrencilerinin zorbalık statülerinin okul iklimi, prososyal davranışlar, temel ihtiyaçlar ve cinsiyet değişkenlerine göre incelenmesi. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 60(60), 555-576. google scholar
Das, E., Kerkhof, P. ve Kuiper, J. (2008). Improving the effectiveness of fundraising messages: The impact of charity goal attainment, message framing, and evidence on persuasion. Journal ofApplied Communication Research, 36(2), 161-175. google scholar
Davis, J. J. (1995). The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 285-299. google scholar
Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review ofPsychology, 31(1), 169-193. google scholar
De Cremer, D. ve Van Lange, P. A. M. (2001). Why prosocials exhibit greater cooperation than proselfs: The roles of social responsibility and reciprocity. European Journal ofPersonality, 15(1), 5-18. google scholar
Dovidio, J. F. (1984). Helping behavior and altruism: An empirical and conceptual overview. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 361-427. google scholar
Eisenberg, N. (1991). Meta-analytic contributions to the literature on prosocial behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(3), 273-282. google scholar
Eisenberg, N. ve Fabes, R. A. (1991). Prosocial behavior and empathy: A multimethod developmental perspective. M. S. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial behavior içinde (s. 34-61). Sage Publications, Inc. google scholar
Eisenberg, N. ve Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. W. Damon ve N. Eisenberg (Ed.), google scholar
Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development içinde (s. 701778). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. google scholar
Elliott, C. S. ve Hayward, D. M. (1998). The expanding definition of framing and its particular impact on economic experimentation. The Journal ofSocio-Economics, 27(2), 229-243. google scholar
Fairbairn, C. E. ve Sayette, M. A. (2013). The effect of alcohol on emotional inertia: A test of alcohol myopia. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 122(3), 770-781. google scholar
Fehr, E. ve Gachter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415(6868), 137-140. google scholar
Förster, J., Higgins, E. T. ve Bianco, A. T. (2003). Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns?. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90(1), 148-164. google scholar
Friedman, R. S. ve Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1001-1013. google scholar
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M., ... ve Houlette, M. (1999). Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 388. google scholar
Gachter, S. ve Fehr, E. (1999). Collective action as a social exchange. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 39(4), 341-369. google scholar
Gino, F. ve Margolis, J. D. (2011). Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence (un)ethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 145-156. google scholar
Godinho, C. A., Updegraff, J. A., Alvarez, M. J. ve Lima, M. L. (2017). When is congruency helpful? Interactive effects of frame, motivational orientation, and perceived message quality on fruit and vegetable consumption. Journal of health communication, 22(12), 942-950. google scholar
Hayward, R. D. ve Kemmelmeier, M. (2007). How competition is viewed across cultures: A test of four theories. Cross-Cultural Research, 41(4), 364-395. google scholar
Herrmann, B., Thöni, C. ve Gachter, S. (2008). Antisocial punishment across societies. Science, 319(5868), 1362-1367. google scholar
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280-1300. google scholar
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology içinde (s. 1-46). New York: Academic Press. google scholar
Higgins, E. T. (2012). Regulatory focus theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology. London: Sage London google scholar
Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N. ve Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 31(1), 3-23. google scholar
Higgins, E. T. ve Spiegel, S. (2004). Promotion and prevention strategies for self-regulation: A motivated cognition perspective. R. F. Baumeister ve K. D. Vohs (Ed), Handbook ofself-regulation: Research, theory, and applications içinde (s. 171-187). New York, NY: Guilford Press. google scholar
Idson, L. C., Liberman, N. ve Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 252-274. google scholar
Israel, S., Lerer, E., Shalev, I., Uzefovsky, F., Riebold, M., Laiba, E., ... ve Ebstein, R. P. (2009). The oxytocin receptor (OXTR) contributes to prosocial fund allocations in the dictator game and the social value orientations task. PloS One, 4(5), 1-10. google scholar
Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R. ve Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), 1002-1012. google scholar
Karagonlar, G. ve Kuhlman, D. M. (2013). The role of social value orientation in response to an unfair offer in the ultimatum game. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 228-239. google scholar
Karagonlar, G. ve Neves, P. (2020). No more Mr. Nice Guy: Social value orientation and abusive supervision. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(2), 85-99. google scholar
Keller, J. ve Pfattheicher, S. (2011). Vigilant self-regulation, cues of being watched and cooperativeness. European Journal of Personality, 25(5), 363-372. google scholar
Kelley, H. H. ve Stahelski, A. J. (1970). Social interaction basis of cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefs about others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(1), 66-91. google scholar
Kelley, H. H. ve Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley-Interscience. google scholar
Kiyonari, T., Yamagishi, T., Cook, K. S. ve Cheshire, C. (2006). Does trust beget trustworthiness? Trust and trustworthiness in two games and two cultures: A research note. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(3), 270-283. google scholar
Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 183-214. google scholar
Köbis, N. C., Van Prooijen, J. W., Righetti, F. ve Van Lange, P. A. (2015). “Who doesn’t?”—The impact of descriptive norms on corruption. PloS ONE, 10(6), e0131830. google scholar
Kuhlman, D. M., Camac, C. R. ve Cunha, D. A. (1986). Individual differences in social orientation. H. Wilke, D. Messick ve C. Rutte (Ed.), Experimental social dilemmas içinde (s. 151-176). New York: Verlag Peter Lang. google scholar
Kuhlman, D. M. ve 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(5), 922-931. google scholar
Kuhlman, D. M. ve Wimberley, D. L. (1976). Expectations of choice behavior held by cooperators, competitors, and individualists across four classes of experimental games. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(1), 69-81. google scholar
Latane, B. ve Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. google scholar
Liebrand, W. B. (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(3), 239-264. google scholar
Liebrand, W. B. ve 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(3), 217-230. google scholar
Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F. ve Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the “porcupine problem.”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 42-55. google scholar
Maner, J. K., Luce, C. L., Neuberg, S. L., Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. ve Sagarin, B. J. (2002). The effects of perspective taking on motivations for helping: Still no evidence for altruism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(11), 1601-1610. google scholar
Martinsson, P., Villegas-Palacio, C. ve Wollbrant, C. (2015). Cooperation and social classes: Evidence from Colombia. Social Choice and Welfare, 45(4), 829-848. google scholar
Mayer, J. D. ve Gaschke, Y. N. (1988). The experience and meta-experience of mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(1), 102-111. google scholar
McClintock, C. G. ve Liebrand, W. B. (1988). Role of interdependence structure, individual value orientation, and another’s strategy in social decision making: A transformational analysis. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 55(3), 396-409. google scholar
Messick, D. M. ve McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 4(1), 1-25. google scholar
Murphy, R. O., Ackermann, K. A. ve Handgraaf, M. (2011). Measuring social value orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 771-781. google scholar
Nowak, M. A. ve Sigmund, K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437(7063), 1291-1298. google scholar
Omoto, A. M. ve Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 671. google scholar
Omoto, A. M. ve Snyder, M. (2002). Considerations of community: The context and process of volunteerism. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(5), 846-867. google scholar
Ortmann, A. ve Tichy, L. K. (1999). Gender differences in the laboratory: Evidence from prisoner’s dilemma games. Journal ofEconomic Behavior & Organization, 39(3), 327-339. google scholar
Parks, C. D., Joireman, J. ve Van Lange, P. A. (2013). Cooperation, trust, and antagonism: How public goods are promoted. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(3), 119-165. google scholar
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A. ve Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review ofPsychology, 56, 365-392. google scholar
Pfattheicher, S. ve Keller, J. (2013). Vigilant self-regulation and costly punishment in public goods situations. European Journal ofPersonality, 27(4), 346-354. google scholar
Pham, M. T. ve Avnet, T. (2009). Contingent reliance on the affect heuristic as a function of regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(2), 267-278. google scholar
Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Cöte, S., Cheng, B. H. ve Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: The influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 771-784. google scholar
Piliavin, J. A. ve Charng, H. W. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent theory and research. Annual Review ofSociology, 16(1), 27-65. google scholar
Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L. ve Clark, R. D. III. (1981). Emergency intervention. New York: Academic Press. google scholar
Pletzer, J. L., Balliet, D., Joireman, J., Kuhlman, D. M., Voelpel, S. C. ve Van Lange, P. A. (2018). Social value orientation, expectations, and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis. European Journal ofPersonality, 32(1), 62-83. google scholar
Pruitt, D. G. ve Kimmel, M. J. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and suggestions for the future. Annual Review ofPsychology, 28(1), 363-392. google scholar
Rothman, A. J. ve Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3-19. google scholar
Schwartz, S. H. ve Howard, J. A. (1982). Helping and cooperation: A self-based motivational model. V. J. Derlega, J. Grzelak (Ed.), Cooperation and helping behavior içinde (s. 327-353). New York: Academic press. google scholar
Seguino, S., Stevens, T. ve Lutz, M. (1996). Gender and cooperative behavior: Economic man rides alone. Feminist Economics, 2(1), 1-21. google scholar
Sell, J. (1997). Gender, strategies, and contributions to public goods. Social Psychology Quarterly 60, 252-65. google scholar
Simpson, B. (2003). Sex, fear, and greed: A social dilemma analysis of gender and cooperation. Social Forces, 82(1), 35-52. google scholar
Staub, E. 2002. Emergency helping, genocidal violence, and the evolution of responsibility and altruism in children. R.J. Davidson ve A. Harrington (Ed)., Visions of compassion: Western scientists and Tibetan buddhists examine human nature içinde (s. 165-81). London: Oxford Univ. Press google scholar
Staunton, M., Louis, W. R., Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J. ve McDonald, R. I. (2014). How negative descriptive norms for healthy eating undermine the effects of positive injunctive norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(4), 319-330. google scholar
Stockard, J., Van De Kragt, A. J. ve Dodge, P. J. (1988). Gender roles and behavior in social dilemmas: Are there sex differences in cooperation and in its justification?. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(2), 154-163. google scholar
Tice, D. M., Bratslavsky, E. ve Baumeister, R. F. (2001). Emotional distress regulation takes precedence over impulse control: If you feel bad, do it!. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1), 53-67. google scholar Tversky, A. ve Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. google scholar
Tversky, A. ve Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59(1), 251-278. google scholar
Uskul, A. K., Sherman, D. K. ve Fitzgibbon, J. (2009). The cultural congruency effect: Culture, regulatory focus, and the effectiveness of gain-vs. loss-framed health messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 535-541. google scholar
Van Andel, C. E., Tybur, J. M. ve Van Lange, P. A. (2016). Donor registration, college major, and prosociality: Differences among students of economics, medicine and psychology. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 277-283. google scholar
Van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K. ve Van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological science, 15(1), 71-74. 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(2), 337-349. google scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., Bekkers, R., Schuyt, T. N. M. ve Van Vugt, M. V. (2007). From games to giving: Social value orientation predicts donations to noble causes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(4), 375-384. google scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., De Bruin, E., Otten, W. ve 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. google scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D. ve Van Dijk, E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 125-141. google scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M. ve 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(1), 126-141. google scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M. ve Rusbult, C. E. (2012). Interdependence theory. P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski ve E. T. Higgins (Ed.), Handbook of theories of social psychology içinde (s. 251-272). London: Sage London. google scholar
Vugt, M. V., Cremer, D. D. ve Janssen, D. P. (2007). Gender differences in cooperation and competition: The male-warrior hypothesis. Psychological science, 18(1), 19-23. google scholar
Van Vugt, V. M., Meertens, R. M. ve 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(3), 258-278. google scholar
Wan, E. W., Hong, J. ve Sternthal, B. (2009). The effect of regulatory orientation and decision strategy on brand judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6), 1026-1038. google scholar
Yaban, H. (2017). Ergenler ve beliren yetişkinlerde sosyal değer yöneliminin gelişimsel, sosyal-bilişsel ve bağlamsal bir model çerçevesinde incelenmesi (Doktora Tezi). Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Ankara, Türkiye. google scholar
Yamagishi, T., Mifune, N., Li, Y., Shinada, M., Hashimoto, H., Horita, Y., ... ve Takagishi, H. (2013). Is behavioral pro-sociality game-specific? Pro-social preference and expectations of pro-sociality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 260-271. google scholar
Yener, S. (2017). Psikolojik rahatlık algısının işgören sesliliği ve takım işbirliği arasındaki ilişkide aracı değişken rolü. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 19(2), 187-204. google scholar
Yeşiltaş, M., Kanten, P. ve Sormaz, Ü. (2013). Otantik liderlik tarzının prososyal hizmet davranışları üzerindeki etkisi: Konaklama işletmelerine yönelik bir uygulama. Istanbul University Journal of the School of Business Administration, 42(2), 333-350. google scholar

There are 110 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language	Turkish
Journal Section	Research Article
Authors	Gokhan Karagonlar 0000-0002-2718-5258 Sevgi Emirza 0000-0002-5988-8935
Project Number	114K324
Publication Date	December 31, 2021
Submission Date	October 26, 2020
Published in Issue	Year 2021 Volume: 41 Issue: 3

Cite

APA	Karagonlar, G., & Emirza, S. (2021). Sosyal Değer Yönelimi ve Sosyal İkilemlerde İş Birliği: Düzenleyici Odağın ve Tanımlayıcı Normların Etkisi. Studies in Psychology, 41(3), 991-1035. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-816761
AMA	Karagonlar G, Emirza S. Sosyal Değer Yönelimi ve Sosyal İkilemlerde İş Birliği: Düzenleyici Odağın ve Tanımlayıcı Normların Etkisi. Studies in Psychology. December 2021;41(3):991-1035. doi:10.26650/SP2020-816761
Chicago	Karagonlar, Gokhan, and Sevgi Emirza. “Sosyal Değer Yönelimi Ve Sosyal İkilemlerde İş Birliği: Düzenleyici Odağın Ve Tanımlayıcı Normların Etkisi”. Studies in Psychology 41, no. 3 (December 2021): 991-1035. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-816761.
EndNote	Karagonlar G, Emirza S (December 1, 2021) Sosyal Değer Yönelimi ve Sosyal İkilemlerde İş Birliği: Düzenleyici Odağın ve Tanımlayıcı Normların Etkisi. Studies in Psychology 41 3 991–1035.
IEEE	G. Karagonlar and S. Emirza, “Sosyal Değer Yönelimi ve Sosyal İkilemlerde İş Birliği: Düzenleyici Odağın ve Tanımlayıcı Normların Etkisi”, Studies in Psychology, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 991–1035, 2021, doi: 10.26650/SP2020-816761.
ISNAD	Karagonlar, Gokhan - Emirza, Sevgi. “Sosyal Değer Yönelimi Ve Sosyal İkilemlerde İş Birliği: Düzenleyici Odağın Ve Tanımlayıcı Normların Etkisi”. Studies in Psychology 41/3 (December 2021), 991-1035. https://doi.org/10.26650/SP2020-816761.
JAMA	Karagonlar G, Emirza S. Sosyal Değer Yönelimi ve Sosyal İkilemlerde İş Birliği: Düzenleyici Odağın ve Tanımlayıcı Normların Etkisi. Studies in Psychology. 2021;41:991–1035.
MLA	Karagonlar, Gokhan and Sevgi Emirza. “Sosyal Değer Yönelimi Ve Sosyal İkilemlerde İş Birliği: Düzenleyici Odağın Ve Tanımlayıcı Normların Etkisi”. Studies in Psychology, vol. 41, no. 3, 2021, pp. 991-1035, doi:10.26650/SP2020-816761.
Vancouver	Karagonlar G, Emirza S. Sosyal Değer Yönelimi ve Sosyal İkilemlerde İş Birliği: Düzenleyici Odağın ve Tanımlayıcı Normların Etkisi. Studies in Psychology. 2021;41(3):991-1035.

Download Cover Image

Article Files

Full Text

Psikoloji Çalışmaları / Studies In Psychology / ISSN- 1304-4680