Abstract not found

Allowing players in public goods games to make small incremental commitments to contributing to the good might facilitate cooperation because it helps to prevent players from being "free ridden," contributing more to the public good than other group members. Two experiments using a real time version of the voluntary contribution mechanism were conducted to investigate the hypothesis that players are generally willing to contribute public goods conditional on beliefs that others are doing so at similar levels. Experiment 1 provided evidence that affording a strategy of commitment can increase the production of public goods. Experiment 2 provided evidence that most players are willing to contribute to the public good at a level at or slightly above the contribution of the lowest contributor in the group. Both experiments point to inequity aversion as an important element in play in public goods games. Real Time Public Goods 3 Incremental Commitment and Reciprocity in a Real Time Public Goods Game Public goods have the property that once they are produced, any individual in a group can consume them, regardless of whether or not he or she contributed to the production of the good. A strictly rational agent should, in general, refuse to provision a public good, because the agent can enjoy the benefit of the good without bearing the cost of provisioning it (Olson, 1965).

coordinating the various parts of this research. We thank David Alberts, Raymond

Research using the public goods game to examine behaviour in the context of social dilemmas has repeatedly shown substantial individual differences in patterns of contributions to the public good. We present here a new method specifically designed to capture this heterogeneity in play and classify participants into broad categories or types. Players in groups of four made initial, simultaneous contributions to the public good. Subsequently, players were sequentially told the current aggregate contribution to the public good and allowed to change their decision based on this information. The game continued, with players updating their contribution decision until the game ended at an unknown point. By looking at the relationship between players' contributions and the aggregate value they observed, we were able to cleanly classify 82% of our players into three types: Strong Free Riders (28%), Conditional Cooperators or Reciprocators (29%), and Strong Cooperators (25%). We also found that ...

This chapter reviews the experimental literature that has accumulated in the last decade on common resource dilemmas and some related situations. It identifies major research topics as well as empirical findings. We provide a theoretical framework that focuses on studies of individual differences, contextual effects, and social structure as non-decision variables. Decision factors include those dealing with uncertainty and knowledge, the decision sequence protocol, and the payoff structure. Inferences are drawn regarding the implications of the results in creating a theory of individual behavior in commons situations.

This paper discusses psychological safety and distinguishes it from the related construct of interpersonal trust. Trust is the expectation that others ' future actions will be favorable to one's interests; psychological safety refers to a climate in which people are comfortable being (and expressing) themselves. Although both constructs involve a willingness to be vulnerable to others ' actions, they are conceptually and theoretically distinct. In particular, psychological safety is centrally tied to learning behavior, while trust lowers transactions costs and reduces the need to monitor behavior. This paper proposes a model of antecedents and consequences of psychological safety in work teams and emphasizes the centrality of psychological safety for learning behavior. Drawing from field research in a variety of organizational settings, I describe different approaches to studying and measuring psychological safety in teams. I conclude with implications of this work including limitations of psychological safety in practice and suggestions areas for future research. 1 There's much greater openness on this team—it's intangible.- Marketing member, new product development team, manufacturing company [In this team] people are put down for being different...- Accountant, publications team, manufacturing company Mistakes [in this unit] are serious, because of the toxicity of the drugs—so you’re never afraid to tell the nurse manager.- Nurse, Team A, Memorial Hospital [The team leader] treats you as guilty if you make a mistake... I was called into her office and made to feel like a two-year old... You get put on trial...- Nurse, Team B, Memorial Hospital

This is work is dedicated to my husband Jan and my children Maria, Jonathan, Gina, Matthew, and Lisa--the six people who give true joy and meaning to my life. iii Acknowledgments I have been uniquely fortunate in having two incredible individuals serve as my co-chairs, Dr. Craig Bach and Dr.Galen Godbey. Their partnership and sharing of the chairship was the model of agility; each brought a unique perspective and complementary areas of expertise that proved to be invaluable to my work. I credit them for making this journey so rewarding and thank them for making it such an exciting passage. Their insight, reason, and guidance have made my dissertation process a remarkable experience; their kindness, ethics, and friendship have enriched me beyond words. They have truly touched my life beyond academics by modeling the very finest qualities of human nature. Along with my co-chairs I have had an extremely supportive and available committee Dr. Jim Mc Dowelle, Dr. Sheila Vaidya, and Dr. Lois Draina. To Dr. Draina I owe particular thanks for her advisement, mentorship, and friendship throughout my

Decision-making about the resolution of social dilemmas: outcome heterogeneity, individual differences in social values and the exercise of power.

While technology has been often held responsible for engendering mistrust, little has been done to establish the role of informationtechnology in creating trust in organizations. This paper explores the phenomena of trust-building through Intelligent Agents. Beginning with an overview on the meanings and measures of trust, the effects of trust in a variety of settings are examined. Further, a series of exploratory studies illustrate the positive effect of a intelligent agents in generating trust in an organizational setting.

Abstract not found