Psycology - Social Determinism
How does group size influence peoples responses in a social dilemma situation? This study attempts to answer this question by providing a scenario to participants involving a social dilemma - to cooperate with other group members or to compete with them, in the process of acquiring more wealth. Participants were presented with a fishing simulation over a computer network, which required them to act cooperatively to acquire the most wealth. The results showed a difference between the data for large and small groups in the total mean money earned, and the time taken to earn it. It was found that larger group sizes decreased the amount of cooperation within groups, which is consistent with the hypothesis that less money would be earned by individuals in larger groups. It was also found that larger groups tend to finish earlier indicating a more competitive perspective, also supporting the hypotheses "Social interdependence involves settings in which each person's well-being is strongly dependent upon the decisions and behaviours of both themselves and other people" (Beggan, Platow, & McClintock, 1991,p.397). Social Interdependence is a major part of our everyday lives, with decisions constantly being made which directly,
The participants ranged in age from 18 years to 24 years. 6Mean Amount of Money Earned (per individual) $21236. A potentially reliable way to do this would be to observe participants behaviours in relation to real life dilemmas. It is expected that as group size increases the level of cooperation will decrease, shown by a decrease in the amount of money earned, also it is expected that the fishing will start earlier and finish earlier with larger groups than with smaller groups. This printout was in the form of the following table, Table 1. Where a public view and precedent has not been set the concept is more open to competitive attitudes. Further studies into this field should include this factor in the research. On finishing the results were displayed on the screen, which participants were asked to write down, and then enter into the computer in front of them. The mean data values for each of the categories were then calculated by the database software, with a summary being printed out. Each participant performed a total of two trials (one in a group of two, and one in a group of five. Individuals have two ways to react to such a scenario. In this situation farmers are able to place their stock on a common piece of land, the village common, for grazing. 1Mean Day Fishing Started and Ended, and Mean Amount Earned per Individual Small Group (N=2) Large Group (N=5)Mean Day When Fishing Started 1. The farmers appear to neglect the negative effects of overgrazing as they are shared with all of the other farmers using the common land. Once all participants understood the task before them, they proceeded to play the computer game, until the game ended on the seventh day, or the fish level became too low that they could not replenish themselves.
Common topics in this essay:
Money Earned,
Apparatus Archimedes,
Tragedy Commons,
Komorita Parks,
,
Social Interdependence,
Laboratory Manual,
Wayne Rubinstein,
March Simon,
Method Participants,
money earned,
social dilemma,
day fishing,
mean day,
mean day fishing,
amount money,
computer network,
money earned individuals,
fishing started,
table 11,
tragedy commons,
hardin 1968,
amount money earned,
day fishing started,
decrease amount money,
|
Acceptance Essays
