Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:28:50.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What we need is theory of human cooperation (and meta-analysis) to bridge the gap between the lab and the wild

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2012

Paul A. M. Van Lange ,
Daniel P. Balliet  and
Hans IJzerman
Paul A. M. Van Lange
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, VU University, Amsterdam, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [email protected]://[email protected]@psy.vu.nlhttp://h.ijzerman.googlepages.com
Daniel P. Balliet
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, VU University, Amsterdam, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [email protected]://[email protected]@psy.vu.nlhttp://h.ijzerman.googlepages.com
Hans IJzerman
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, VU University, Amsterdam, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [email protected]://[email protected]@psy.vu.nlhttp://h.ijzerman.googlepages.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This commentary seeks to clarify the potential discrepancy between lab-based and field data in the use and effectiveness of punishment to promote cooperation by recommending theory that outlines key differences between the lab and field, such as the shadow of the future and degree of information availability. We also discuss a recent meta-analysis (Balliet et al. 2011) that does not support all conclusions outlined in Guala's target article.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , February 2012 , pp. 41 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Axelrod, R. (1984) The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Balliet, D., Moulder, L. B. & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2011) Reward, punishment, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 137(4):594–615. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fehr, E. & Gächter, S. (2002) Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature 415(6868):137–40. Available at: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6868/abs/415137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IJzerman, H. & Koole, S. L. (2011) From perceptual rags to metaphoric riches: Bodily, social, and cultural constraints on sociocognitive metaphors. Psychological Bulletin 137:355–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbult, C. E. & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003) An atlas of interpersonal situations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1952) Field theory in social sciences: Selected theoretical papers. Harper.Google Scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., Klapwijk, A. & Van Munster, L. (2011) How the shadow of the future might promote cooperation. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. 14:857–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lange, P. A. M., Ouwerkerk, J. W. & Tazelaar, M. J. A. (2002) How to overcome the detrimental effects of noise in social interaction: The benefits of generosity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82:768–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Lange, P. A. M. & Rusbult, C. E. (2012) Interdependence theory. In: Handbook of theories of social psychology, vol. 2, ed. Van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W. & Higgins, E. T., pp. 251–72. Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar