Monitoring, reputation, and 'greenbeard' reciprocity in a Shuar work team

被引:30
作者
Price, ME
机构
[1] Indiana Univ, Workshop Polit Theory & Policy Anal, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA
[2] Santa Fe Inst, Santa Fe, NM 87501 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1002/job.347
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
A collective action (CA), i.e., a group of individuals jointly producing a resource to be shared equally among themselves, is a common interaction in organizational contexts. Ancestral humans who were predisposed to cooperate in CAs would have risked being disadvantaged compared to free riders, but could have overcome this disadvantage through 'greenbeard' reciprocity, that is, by assessing the extent to which co-interactants were also predisposed towards cooperation, and then cooperating to the extent that they expected co-interactants to reciprocate. Assessment of others' cooperativeness could have been based on the direct monitoring of, and on reputational information about, others' cooperativeness. This theory predicts that (1) CA participants should monitor accurately, and (2) perceived higher-cooperators should have better reputations. These predictions were supported in a study of real-life CAs carried out by a group of Shuar hunter-horticulturalists: (1) members accurately distinguished 'intentional' non-cooperators (who could have cooperated but chose not to) from 'accidental' non-cooperators (who were unable to cooperate), and their perceptions of co-member cooperativeness accurately reflected more objective measures of this cooperativeness; and (2) perceived intentional cooperators had better reputations than perceived intentional non-cooperators. These results have direct applications in organizational contexts, for example, for increasing cooperativeness in self-directed work teams. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:201 / 219
页数:19
相关论文
共 89 条
[81]   EVOLUTION OF RECIPROCAL ALTRUISM [J].
TRIVERS, RL .
QUARTERLY REVIEW OF BIOLOGY, 1971, 46 (01) :35-+
[82]   Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness [J].
Uzzi, B .
ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY, 1997, 42 (01) :35-67
[83]   Egocentric interpretations of fairness in asymmetric, environmental social dilemmas: Explaining harvesting behavior and the role of communication [J].
WadeBenzoni, KA ;
Tenbrunsel, AE ;
Bazerman, MH .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1996, 67 (02) :111-126
[84]   Cooperation through image scoring in humans [J].
Wedekind, C ;
Milinski, M .
SCIENCE, 2000, 288 (5467) :850-852
[85]  
Williams G. C., 1966, P307
[86]   NATURAL-SELECTION OF INDIVIDUALLY HARMFUL SOCIAL ADAPTATIONS AMONG SIBS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO SOCIAL INSECTS [J].
WILLIAMS, GC ;
WILLIAMS, DC .
EVOLUTION, 1957, 11 (01) :32-39
[87]   REINTRODUCING GROUP SELECTION TO THE HUMAN BEHAVIORAL-SCIENCES [J].
WILSON, DS ;
SOBER, E .
BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES, 1994, 17 (04) :585-608
[88]   You can judge a book by its cover - Evidence that cheaters may look different from cooperators [J].
Yamagishi, T ;
Tanida, S ;
Mashima, R ;
Shimoma, E ;
Kanazawa, S .
EVOLUTION AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR, 2003, 24 (04) :290-301
[89]   THE PROVISION OF A SANCTIONING SYSTEM AS A PUBLIC GOOD [J].
YAMAGISHI, T .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1986, 51 (01) :110-116