1 / 17

Laetitia Mulder, University of Groningen Rob Nelissen, Tilburg University

Complying by the rules in absence of surveillance: The impact of a group-interested versus self-interested authority. Laetitia Mulder, University of Groningen Rob Nelissen, Tilburg University. Structural solutions: undoing the dilemma. Privatization Leaders Rules Sanctions.

lucio
Download Presentation

Laetitia Mulder, University of Groningen Rob Nelissen, Tilburg University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Complying by the rules in absence of surveillance: The impact of a group-interested versus self-interested authority Laetitia Mulder, University of Groningen Rob Nelissen, Tilburg University

  2. Structural solutions: undoing the dilemma • Privatization • Leaders • Rules • Sanctions

  3. Compliance? Not always (e.g. Gneezy and Rustichini, 2000; Michael, 2006; Mulder et al., PSPB 2006; Tenbrunsel et al., 1997) • Compliance in absence of surveillance? • Rule should convince people that cooperation is good for all / “awareness” of social dilemma

  4. When does a rule/sanction get “internalized”? • Little research • Sanctions, sanction severity, punishment versus reward (Thogersen 1997; Mulder et al., 2009; Mulder, 2008) • Who installs the rule

  5. Leaders / authorities • Impact leaders in group behavior: Trust, self-sacrificing leadership, legitimacy, procedural justice (Tyler & Lind, 1992; Tyler, 1997; Tyler et al, 2000; Tyler & Degoey, 1995; De Cremer & Van Knippenberg, 2003)  Group versus self interested leader

  6. Leader installs a rule or sanctions Leader perceived as group-interested Leader perceived as self-interested “cooperation is good for all / morally correct” etc. “cooperation is something that the leader wants, nothing more” No compliance, or only compliance when supervised Compliance, even without supervision

  7. Study 1: experimental, real interactions • Bogus leadership style questionnaire: e.g. “If I am a group leader I strive for what is best for everyone”, If I am a group leader I strive for what is best for myself”  “group score” and “self score” • Public good dilemma (groups of 4, each 20 x 20cent coins, coins contributed to group multiplied by 1,5 and divided equally) • Leader: another participant. Either high group score and low self score (group interested leader condition) or the other way around (self interested leader condition). • Leader could fine other group members with €2 (Leader + sanction pre-programmed. Fine was distributed when contribution was lower than 12).

  8. Results

  9. Study 2: 2 (leader) x 2 (rule) fishing vignette experiment

  10. Results: Caught fish in kilos Post-hoc: paired comparisons within columns

  11. Study 3: 2 (leader) x 3 (rule) shop vignette experiment

  12. Results: Intented duration of break in minutes Note: Within columns, cells that do not share a letter in the superscript differ significantly, planned comparison, p < .05.

  13. Study 4: 2 (leader) x 3 (rule) lab experiment • PG dilemma: pts typed in choice and explanation • Resource dilemma (different groups): - 5 persons, one of which the leader (random) and 4 “normal group members” - leader able to impose self-chosen rule - information on leader: choice + explanation in previous PD game. - Group benefitting leader condition: contributed 100 Self-benefitting leader condition: contributed 0. “I just went for the group interest (my own self interest). If I (the group) would earn less by doing that, I don’t mind very much. By donating everything, the group (I) simply earns (earn) the most.”

  14. Study 4: 2 (leader) x 3 (rule) lab experiment • Pool of 40 lottery tickets (“owned by leader”) • Each “normal” group member could take from pool (0-10) • What was left in pool: doubled and equally divided among all 5. • Rule manipulation: No-rule condition: Leader did not install a rule Rule condition: Leader: “I install the rule that you do NOT take any tickets from the pool. So, the rule will be: leave all tickets in the pool.” • Rule condition: some leaders able to supervise, some are not. Rule with supervision: your leader has the opportunity to supervise group members’ decisions Rule without supervision: your leader does not have the opportunity to supervise group members’ decisions • Decision on number of lottery tickets to take (0-10)

  15. Number of lottery tickets taken (n = 90)

  16. Leader installs a rule or sanctions Leader perceived as group-interested Leader perceived as self-interested “cooperation is good for all / morally correct” etc. “cooperation is something that the leader wants, nothing more” No compliance, or only compliance when supervised Compliance, even without supervision

  17. Conclusions • Successfulness of rules/sanctions depends on who installs them. • Let rules or sanctions be imposed by authorities who have built credits, with a pro-social appearance, etc. • Structural solutions may fail to make structural changes

More Related