Motivational foundations of communication, voluntary cooperation, and self-governance in a common-pool resource dilemma
Motivational foundations of communication, voluntary cooperation, and self-governance in a common-pool resource dilemma
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.cresp.2021.100016
复制
发表时间：
2021-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Lee, Allen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
DeCaro, Daniel A.;Janssen, Marco A.;Lee, Allen
传统智慧（理性选择理论）认为，由于个人狭隘的私利，他们注定要集体破坏重要的生态系统。相比之下，人文理性选择理论（HRCT）假设个体可以合作自治，设计有效的保护协议和治理系统来约束自利以实现互利。为了验证这一假设，我们在资源困境实验中考察了沟通的动机、感知和合作结果。HRCT认为，管理不善的困境会破坏人们的基本需求（例如，程序正义、安全、公平），从而促使他们进行自治。公平决策（例如，民主决策）和执行协议的群体应该更好地满足其集体需求，确保更好的机构接受和信任，从而改善合作和可持续性。四人小组（N = 41组）从共享池中获取有价值的资源，没有沟通（阶段1），有沟通（阶段2），然后没有沟通（阶段3）。在阶段1中，团队破坏了资源并报告了较低的需求满意度。在第二阶段，大多数群体创建了治理体系，极大地提高了他们的需求满意度（ds >= 1.32）、信任（d = 2.30）、合作和资源可持续性（eta(2)= 0.87）。民主管理的群体报告了最大的需求满足，内在动机（即制度内化和接受）和信任，特别是如果他们主要使用积极的社会制裁（如表扬）来执行他们的协议。负面制裁（例如，羞辱、威胁）适得其反，除非在民主团体中使用。这些因素占第三阶段自愿合作和资源可持续性差异的47%。群体自我管理，共同满足他们相互依赖的基本需求。
Conventional wisdom (rational choice theory) assumes that individuals are destined to collectively destroy vital ecological systems due to their narrow self-interest. In contrast, Humanistic Rational Choice Theory (HRCT) assumes individuals can cooperatively self-govern, devising effective conservation agreements and governance systems to constrain self-interest for mutual benefit. To test this assumption, we examined the motivational, perceptual, and cooperative outcomes of communication in a resource dilemma experiment. HRCT assumes that poorly managed dilemmas undermine people's fundamental needs (e.g., procedural justice, security, equity), motivating them to self-govern. Groups that make decisions fairly (e.g., democratically) and enforce their agreements, should satisfy their collective needs better, ensuring better institutional acceptance and trust, thereby improving cooperation and sustainability. Small groups of four ( N = 41 groups) harvested valuable resources from a shared pool without communication (Phase 1), with communication (Phase 2), and then without communication (Phase 3). Groups destroyed the resource and reported low need satisfaction during Phase 1. During Phase 2, most groups created governance systems, greatly improving their need satisfaction (ds >= 1.32), trust ( d = 2.30), cooperation and resource sustainability (eta(2)= 0.87). Democratically governed groups reported the greatest need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation (i.e., institutional internalization and acceptance), and trust, especially if they primarily used positive social sanctions (e.g., praise) to enforce their agreements. Negative sanctions (e.g., shaming, threats) backfired, unless used in democratic groups. These factors accounted for 47% of the variance in Phase 3 voluntary cooperation and resource sustainability. Groups self-governed to collectively satisfy their interdependent fundamental needs.