ScholarGate
Asistent

Usporedite metode

Pregledajte odabrane metode jednu uz drugu; retci koji se razlikuju su istaknuti.

Trust Game×Public Goods Game×Social Relations Model×
PodručjeSocijalna psihologijaSocijalna psihologijaSocijalna psihologija
ObiteljProcess / pipelineProcess / pipelineRegression model
Godina nastanka199520002006
TvoracJoyce Berg, John Dickhaut & Kevin McCabeExperimental economics tradition; Fehr & Gachter (cooperation and punishment)David A. Kenny and colleagues
VrstaBehavioral economic game as a social-psychology paradigmMulti-player social-dilemma paradigmVariance-decomposition model for dyadic data
Temeljni izvorBerg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122-142. DOI ↗Fehr, E., & Gachter, S. (2000). Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments. American Economic Review, 90(4), 980-994. DOI ↗Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic Data Analysis. Guilford Press. ISBN: 9781572309869
Drugi naziviInvestment Game, Berg Game, Two-Player Trust GameVoluntary Contribution Mechanism, Common-Pool Contribution Game, Linear Public Goods GameSRM, Kenny Social Relations Model, Round-Robin Variance Partition
Srodne333
SažetakThe trust game, introduced by Berg, Dickhaut, and McCabe in 1995 (and often called the investment game), is a two-player exchange that operationalizes interpersonal trust and reciprocity in money. An investor receives an endowment and may send any portion to an anonymous trustee; the experimenter multiplies the transfer (typically tripling it); the trustee then decides how much, if any, to return. Standard game theory with purely self-interested players predicts the investor should send nothing because a selfish trustee returns nothing -- yet investors reliably send substantial amounts and trustees reliably return some, contradicting the narrow self-interest prediction. Because the amount sent cleanly measures trust and the amount returned measures trustworthiness, the paradigm became a workhorse in social psychology, behavioral economics, and neuroscience for studying social preferences and cooperation between strangers.The public goods game is the canonical multi-person social dilemma used to study cooperation. Each member of a group is endowed with money and simultaneously decides how much to keep privately and how much to contribute to a common pool; the pool is multiplied and split equally among all members regardless of contribution. Because the marginal per-capita return is less than one but the group return exceeds one, every individual is privately better off free-riding while the group is collectively better off if all contribute -- the defining tension of a social dilemma. Experiments consistently show people contribute well above the self-interested zero, but contributions decay over repeated rounds unless institutions intervene. Fehr and Gachter's influential demonstration that allowing players to pay to punish free-riders restores and sustains high cooperation made the paradigm central to research on norms, altruistic punishment, and collective action.The Social Relations Model (SRM), developed by David Kenny and colleagues, is a variance-decomposition framework for analyzing interpersonal perception and behavior in groups. When every member of a group rates (or behaves toward) every other member in a round-robin design, each rating reflects three distinct sources: the perceiver's general tendency to see others a certain way (actor effect), the target's general tendency to be seen that way by others (partner effect), and the unique adjustment a particular perceiver makes for a particular target (relationship effect), plus error. The SRM partitions the total variance into these components and estimates two kinds of reciprocity -- generalized (do people who like others tend to be liked?) and dyadic (do specific pairs uniquely reciprocate?). By separating the perceiver, the target, and their unique relationship, the SRM answers fundamental questions about whether interpersonal judgments lie in the eye of the beholder, the qualities of the person judged, or the chemistry of the dyad.
ScholarGateSkup podataka
  1. v1
  2. 1 Izvori
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Izvori
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 1 Izvori
  3. PUBLISHED

Idi na pretraživanje Preuzmi prezentaciju

ScholarGateUsporedite metode: Trust Game · Public Goods Game · Social Relations Model. Preuzeto 2026-06-25 s https://scholargate.app/hr/compare