Carmen Tabernero1
Alicia Arenas2
Elena Briones2
Resumen: Actualmente las organizaciones generan numerosas situaciones de interdependencia en las que los individuos tratan de maximizar el beneficio personal en detrimento del colectivo al que pertenecen. Los entornos que fomentan la competición hacen que las personas tengan que afrontar dilemas sociales semejantes a los que se abordan en otras ciencias como la economía, la evolución, los estudios de población, el medio ambiente, la ecología o el diseño urbanístico. Por esta razón, los investigadores han denominado el estudio de este tipo de comportamiento como la Psicología del Compartir. Cuando un grupo de personas tiene que compartir un número limitado de recursos, existe una tendencia a actuar de una manera autosuficiente, incluso sabiendo que la cooperación mutua podría llevar a un mayor beneficio para más gente. En este estudio pretendemos analizar algunas variables que ayudan a construir un sentimiento de cooperación ante dilemas sociales. Para ello, pedimos a 108 estudiantes universitarios (distribuidos en 36 grupos) que participaran en la resolución de diferentes tareas de negociación y toma de decisiones. Tras varios meses de trabajo en equipo, evaluamos los procesos de autorregulación del grupo (eficacia grupal percibida, metas grupales, estado afectivo grupal). Posteriormente, pedimos a cada grupo que resolviera una tarea de dilema social: the tragedy of the commons. En una primera fase, los equipos debían resolver la tarea en un contexto virtual. En una segunda fase, cada miembro del grupo debía afrontar su elección frente al resto de compañeros durante varias decisiones consecutivas. Los resultados muestran que aquellos individuos cuyos grupos desarrollan una estrategia inicial de cooperación y que mantienen un juicio elevado de eficacia grupal percibida afrontan su decisión de manera cooperativa. Estos resultados aportan un nuevo foco de intervención para afrontar situaciones de competición y dilemas sociales: construir programas de entrenamiento que faciliten situaciones de cooperación para generar eficacia grupal y mejorar el desempeño.
Palabras‑clave: eficacia grupal percibida, dilemas sociales, competición vs colaboración.
Previous experience and group efficacy on social dilemmas
]]> Abstract: Nowadays, organizations create a lot of situations of interdependence in which individuals try to maximize their personal benefit over the benefit of the group they belong to. Contexts that promote competition make people cope with social dilemmas similarly to dilemmas of other sciences such as economy, grow development, population studies, environment, ecology, or urban design. For this reason, the study of this kind of behaviour has been called Sharing Psychology by researchers. When a group of people must share a limited number of resources, there is a trend to behave in a selfish way, even if they know that mutual cooperation might lead to higher benefit for more people. In this study, we intend to analyze some variables involved in the construction of cooperation behaviour in front of social dilemmas. 108 undergraduate students, distributed in thirty six groups, were asked for solving different negotiation and decision‑making tasks. After several months working in teams, we analyze group self‑regulatory processes (perceived group efficacy, team goals, group affective state). Later, we asked each group for solving a social dilemma task: the tragedy of the commons. In the first phase, teams must solve the task in a virtual context. In the second phase, each member of the group had to confront his/her individual election opposite to the rest of colleagues during several consecutive decisions. Results show that those participants, who are in groups that develop an initial strategy of cooperation and keep a high level of perceived group efficacy, cope with their decisions in a cooperative way. These results give us a new point of intervention to confront competitive situations and social dilemmas: to create training programs focused on promoting cooperative situations in order to increase group efficacy and to improve performance.Key‑words: perceived group efficacy, social dillemas, competition vs cooperation.
Experiência prévia e eficácia grupal percebida perante dilemas sociais
Resumo: Actualmente, as organizações geram numerosas situações de interdependência nas quais os indivíduos procuram maximizar os seus benefícios pessoais em detrimento do colectivo a que pertencem. Os contextos que fomentam a competição fazem com que as pessoas tenham que enfrentar dilemas sociais semelhantes aos que se abordam em outras ciências, como a economia, a evolução, os estudos de populações, o meio ambiente, a ecologia e o desenho urbanístico. Por esta razão, os investigadores denominaram o estudo deste tipo de comportamento como a Psicologia do Compartir. Quando um grupo de pessoas tem de compartir um número limitado de recursos, existe uma tendência para actuar de uma maneira auto‑suficiente, mesmo sabendo que a cooperação mútua poderia levar a um maior benefício para mais pessoas. Neste estudo pretendemos analisar algumas variáveis que ajudam a construir un sentimento de cooperação perante dilemas sociais. Numa amostra de 108 estudantes universitários (distribuídos em 36 grupos) que participaram na resolução de diferentes tarefas de negociação e tomada de decisião, ao longo de vários meses de trabalho em equipa, avaliámos os processos de auto‑regulação do grupo (eficácia grupal percebida, metas grupais, estado afectivo grupal). Posteriormente, pedimos a cada grupo que resolvesse uma tarefa de dilema social: the tragedy of the commons. Numa primeira fase, as equipas deviam resolver a tarefa num contexto virtual. Numa segunda fase, cada membro do grupo devia mostrar as suas escolhas ao resto dos companheiros durante várias decisões consecutivas. Os resultados mostram que aqueles indivíduos cujos grupos desenvolvem uma estratégia inicial de cooperação e mantêm um juízo elevado de eficácia grupal percebida tomam decisões de forma cooperativa. Estes resultados trazem novos desemvolvimentos para a intervenção para enfrentar situações de competição e dilemas sociais: construir programas de formação que facilitem situações de cooperação para gerar eficácia grupal e melhorar o desempenho.
Palavras‑chave: Eficácia grupal percebida, dilemas sociais, competição vs colaboração.
Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.
Full text only available in PDF format.
]]> Referências
Agrawal, A. (2002). Common resources and institutional sustainability. In E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P. C. Stern, S. Stonich & E. U. Weber (Eds.), The drama of the commons (pp. 41‑86). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [ Links ]
Arenas, A., Tabernero, C. & Briones, E. (2006). Effect of goal orientation, error orientation and self‑efficacy on performance under uncertain condition. Social Behavior and Personality, 34 (5), 569‑586.
Allison, S. T. & Messick, D. M. (1990). Social decision heuristics in the use of shared resources. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3, 195‑204.
Aumann, R. & Schelling, T. (2005). Robert Aumann’s and Thomas Schelling’s contributions to game theory: Analyses of conflict and cooperation. Advanced information on the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel, 10 October, Stockholm, Sweden.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self‑efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bell, P. A., Petersen, T. R. & Hautaluoma, J. E. (1989). The effect of punishment probability on overconsumption and stealing in a simulated commons. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19 (17, Pt 1), 1483‑1495.
Budescu, D. V., Au, W. T. & Chen, X.‑P. (1997). Effects of protocol of play and social orientation on behavior in sequential resource dilemmas. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69 (3), 179‑193.
Budescu, D. V., Suleiman, R. & Rapoport, A. (1995). Positional and group size effects in resource dilemmas with uncertain resources. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61 (3), 225‑238.
Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169‑193.
]]> Dawes, R. M. & Messick, D. M. (2000). Social dilemmas. International Journal of Psychology, 35 (2), 111‑116.De Cremer, D. & van Vugt, M. (1998). Collective identity and cooperation in a public goods dilemma: A matter of trust or self efficacy? Current Research in Social Psychology, April. http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.3.1.htm.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243‑1248.
Hogg, M. A. & McGarty, C. (1990). Self‑categorization and social identity. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: constructive and critical advances (pp. 10‑27). New York: Springer‑Verlag.
Hodges, L. & Carron, A. V. (1992). Collective efficacy and group performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 48‑59.
Hsee, C. K. (1995). Elastic justification: how tempting but task‑irrelevant factors influence decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62 (3), 330‑337.
Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Graetz, K. A., Drigotas, S. M., Currey, D. P., Smith, S. L., Brazil, D. & Bornstein, G. (1994). Interindividual‑intergroup discontinuity in the Prisoner’s Dilemma Game. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38, 87‑116.
Kelley, H. H. & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: a theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.
Kerr, N. L. (1989). Illusions of efficacy: the effects of group size on perceived efficacy in social dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25 (4), 287‑313.
Kerr, N.L. & Kaufman‑Gilliland, C.M. (1994). Communication, commitment, and cooperation in social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (3), 513‑529.
]]> Kerr, N. L. & Kaufman‑Gilliland, C. M. (1997). “... and besides, I probably couldn’t have made a difference anyway”: justification of social dilemma defection via perceived self‑inefficacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 211‑230.Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: the anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 183‑214.
Nadler, D. A. & Tushman, M. L. (1999). The organization of the future: strategic imperatives and core competencies for the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics, 28, 45‑60.
Messick, D. M. & Brewer, M. B. (1983). Solving social dilemmas. In L. Wheeler & P. Shaver (Eds.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol 4 (pp. 11‑44). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Morris, M. W., Sim, D. L. H. & Girotto, V. (1998). Distingishinh sources of cooperation in the one‑round prisoner’s dilemma: evidence for cooperative decisions based on the illusion of control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 494‑512.
Osofsky, M. J., Bandura, A. & Zimbardo, P. G. (2005). The role of moral disengagement in the execution process. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 371‑393.
Parker, L. E. (1994). Working together: perceived self and collective efficacy at the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24 (1), 43‑59.
Prussia, G. E. & Kinicki, A. J. (1996). A motivational investigation of group effectiveness using social cognitive theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 187‑198.
Rapoport, A., Budescu, D. V. & Suleiman, R. (1993). Sequential requests from randomly distributed shared resources. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 37 (2), 241‑265.
Sally, D. (1995). Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas. Rationality and Society,7, 58‑92.
]]> Samuelson, C. D. & Allison, S. T. (1994). Cognitive factors affecting the use of social decision heuristics in resource‑sharing tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 1‑27.Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.
Tabernero, C., Arenas, A. & Briones, (2005). Impacto del feedback negativo sobre los procesos de autorregulación del grupo. La ruptura del contrato grupal relacional. Revista de Psicología Social, 20, 93‑108.
Tabernero, C., Chambel, M. J. & Curral, L. (2005). The role of leadership on group normative contract: Development and breach. Communication presented at the XII European Congress of Work and Organizational Psychology, May 12.15, Istanbul, Turkey.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7‑24). Chicago: Nelson‑Hall.
Thompson, L. (2005). The mind and the heart of the negotiator. New York: Prentice Hall.
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, 109‑135.
Weber, J. M., Kopelman, S. & Messick, D. M. (2004). A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: applying a logic of appropiateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 281‑307.
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269‑274.
Zimbardo, P. G. (1969). The human choice Individuation. Reason and order versus desindividuation. Impulse and chaos. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Lincoln Nebraska: Univ. Nebraska Press.
]]>1 Universidad de Córdoba. Correspondence to: Carmen Tabernero Urbieta, Universidad de Córdoba, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación, Área de Psicología Social, Avda. San Alberto Magno s/n, 14004 – Córdoba SPAIN, e‑mail: ed1taurm@uco.es, Teléfono 34 957 212605. Este artículo ha sido realizado en parte gracias al Proyecto I + D BSO 2003‑09222 financiado por el Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología.
2 Universidad de Salamanca.
]]>