leap of faith vs. testing the water incremental approach to solidarity in dyadic exchange ko...

15
Leap of Faith vs. Testing the Water Incremental Approach to Solidarity in Dyadic Exchange Ko Kuwabara (Columbia University) Oliver Sheldon (Rutgers University)

Upload: adele-henderson

Post on 31-Dec-2015

215 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Leap of Faith vs. Testing the Water Incremental Approach to Solidarity in Dyadic Exchange Ko Kuwabara (Columbia University) Oliver Sheldon (Rutgers University)

Leap of Faith vs. Testing the WaterIncremental Approach to Solidarity in Dyadic Exchange

Ko Kuwabara (Columbia University)Oliver Sheldon (Rutgers University)

Page 2: Leap of Faith vs. Testing the Water Incremental Approach to Solidarity in Dyadic Exchange Ko Kuwabara (Columbia University) Oliver Sheldon (Rutgers University)

Solidarity from Exchange

Which exchange pattern produces more solidarity (trust and cohesion)? Constant exchange: Always giving the same (full) amount Incremental exchange: Gradually giving more and more

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Time

Res

ou

rce

valu

e

Page 3: Leap of Faith vs. Testing the Water Incremental Approach to Solidarity in Dyadic Exchange Ko Kuwabara (Columbia University) Oliver Sheldon (Rutgers University)

Mixed Results

People “prefer” incremental exchange (Kurzban et al. 2008; Cook et al. 2005)

Incremental exchange is evolutionarily stable (Roberts & Sheratt 1998)

Gradual commitment produces more trust (Molm et al. 2000)

But…

Less than full entrustment signifies distrust (Pillutla et al. 2003)

Early non-cooperation is particularly harmful (Lount et al. 2008)

Page 4: Leap of Faith vs. Testing the Water Incremental Approach to Solidarity in Dyadic Exchange Ko Kuwabara (Columbia University) Oliver Sheldon (Rutgers University)

From Exchanges to Relationship

Repeating exchanges successfully strengthens relational bonds. When/How do interactions become a relationship? (Lawler 2000; Molm 2007)

1.Exchange produces emotions

2.Emotions attributed to different units of exchange• Attributions to the other person creates trust (interpersonal bonds)

• Attributions to the relationship creates cohesion (relational bonds)

3.Covariation Model of Attribution (Kelly 1973)

• Consistent patterns invoke dispositional inferences

• Patterns that vary across time/space invoke external attributions

Page 5: Leap of Faith vs. Testing the Water Incremental Approach to Solidarity in Dyadic Exchange Ko Kuwabara (Columbia University) Oliver Sheldon (Rutgers University)

Overview of Studies

STUDY 1. Exchange patterns in entrustment size (How much)

STUDY 2. Exchange patterns in entrustment frequency (How often)

STUDY 3. Entrustment frequency X entrustment size

PREDICTIONS/FINDINGS

1.Exchanging incrementally in size produces more cohesion

2.Exchanging incrementally in frequency produces less cohesion• Lower number of interactions (Lawler et al. 1992-2007)

• Lower rate of interactions (Molm et al. 2007)

• Early non-cooperation is particularly damaging (Lount et al 2008)

3.Frequency moderates size: Exchange pattern in size matters only when exchanges are sufficiently frequent.

Page 6: Leap of Faith vs. Testing the Water Incremental Approach to Solidarity in Dyadic Exchange Ko Kuwabara (Columbia University) Oliver Sheldon (Rutgers University)

Experimental Procedures

Exchange task Gift exchange (repeated and alternating dictator game) Exchange decision in each round to send X points to P

• Remaining amount invested in lottery

• Entrustments between P and P multiplied by 1.5 (return from exchange)

• Lottery: 50% chance of x1.5 pts, 50% chance of x1 pts

Procedures Play 30-50 rounds of exchange games with an anonymous partner (simulated to follow pre-programmed exchange patterns) Last round announced: Entrustment in end-game Complete a post-experimental questionnaire about trust and cohesion

• How much trust/distrust do you feel toward your partner?

• How positive/negative do you feel about the relationship?

Page 7: Leap of Faith vs. Testing the Water Incremental Approach to Solidarity in Dyadic Exchange Ko Kuwabara (Columbia University) Oliver Sheldon (Rutgers University)

Manipulations

The simulated partner was programmed to...

Constant exchange: Offer full (100%) entrustments in every round.

Incremental exchange: Offer 35-40% of endowment (or give full endowment at 35-40% probability) in each round in the beginning, gradually increasing to full and constant entrustment by the mid-point of the exchange rounds.

Page 8: Leap of Faith vs. Testing the Water Incremental Approach to Solidarity in Dyadic Exchange Ko Kuwabara (Columbia University) Oliver Sheldon (Rutgers University)

Study 1: Entrustment Size

No difference in trust (incremental exchange produced as much trust)

Greater cohesion from incremental exchange

More entrustment in last round after incremental exchange

Page 9: Leap of Faith vs. Testing the Water Incremental Approach to Solidarity in Dyadic Exchange Ko Kuwabara (Columbia University) Oliver Sheldon (Rutgers University)

Study 2

Incremental exchange in frequency reduced trust, cohesion, and entrustment in last round.

Page 10: Leap of Faith vs. Testing the Water Incremental Approach to Solidarity in Dyadic Exchange Ko Kuwabara (Columbia University) Oliver Sheldon (Rutgers University)

Study 3

Frequency has a positive main effect (on trust and cohesion)

Incremental exchange in size promotes cohesion when exchange frequency is constant/high.

Page 11: Leap of Faith vs. Testing the Water Incremental Approach to Solidarity in Dyadic Exchange Ko Kuwabara (Columbia University) Oliver Sheldon (Rutgers University)

Conclusion

Exchanging incrementally in size can promote cohesion, but only when exchange frequency is sufficient.

More attention on exchange dynamics Boundary conditions on rate of increment & initial level of exchange How much exchange frequency is “sufficient”? Are present findings generalizable to other exchange forms?

Page 12: Leap of Faith vs. Testing the Water Incremental Approach to Solidarity in Dyadic Exchange Ko Kuwabara (Columbia University) Oliver Sheldon (Rutgers University)

Exchange Patterns

STUDY 1. Exchanging incrementally in entrustment size produces higher levels of cohesion

STUDY 2. Exchanging incrementally in entrustment frequency is less likely to promote cohesion Lower number of interactions (Lawler et al. 2000) Lower rate of interactions (Molm et al. 2007) Early non-cooperation is particularly damaging (Lount et al 2008)

STUDY 3: Entrustment frequency moderates incremental exchange in entrustment size. Relational attributions do not occur without sufficient interactions.

Page 13: Leap of Faith vs. Testing the Water Incremental Approach to Solidarity in Dyadic Exchange Ko Kuwabara (Columbia University) Oliver Sheldon (Rutgers University)

Study 3

Does size interact with frequency?

2 (size: constant vs. incremental) X 2 (frequency: constant vs. incremental) design

Page 14: Leap of Faith vs. Testing the Water Incremental Approach to Solidarity in Dyadic Exchange Ko Kuwabara (Columbia University) Oliver Sheldon (Rutgers University)

Study 2

Manipulated entrustment frequency

Entrustments were binary (give or not give)

Added a third condition (“incremental-long”) with additional rounds of full exchange to control for total number of exchange occurrences

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Pro

bab

ility

of

giv

ing

Time

Page 15: Leap of Faith vs. Testing the Water Incremental Approach to Solidarity in Dyadic Exchange Ko Kuwabara (Columbia University) Oliver Sheldon (Rutgers University)

Study 2

Incremental exchange in frequency reduced trust, cohesion, and entrustment in last round.

Controlling for number of exchange occurrences had no effect.