Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:18:37.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Four frames and a funeral: Commentary on Bermúdez (2022)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2022

Carsten K. W. De Dreu Open the ORCID record for Carsten K. W. De Dreu [Opens in a new window]
Carsten K. W. De Dreu*
Affiliation:
Leiden University, Leiden, [email protected] University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is much to like in Bermúdez's analysis, yet it is incomplete and at times problematic for social decision making and, by extension, interpersonal conflict. Here I explain how four frames – gains, losses, me, we – operate in conjunction and how humans gravitate toward a “me–loss” frame that, without intervention, leads to a breakdown of cooperation and an arguably tragic funeral of the commons.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e225
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Arad, A., & Rubinstein, A. (2012). Multi-dimensional iterative reasoning in action: The case of the Colonel Blotto game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 84, 571–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211, 1390–1396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 543–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F., Ho, T. H., & Chong, J. K. (2004). A cognitive hierarchy model of games. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 861–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnevale, P. J. (2008). Positive affect and decision frame in negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vliert, E. (1992). Frames of reference and cooperative social decision making. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Carnevale, P. J. D., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vliert, E. (1994). Effects of gain–loss frames in negotiation: Loss aversion, mismatching, and frame adoption. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Gross, J. (2019). Revisiting the form and function of conflict: Neurobiological, psychological and cultural mechanisms for attack and defense within and between groups. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., & McCusker, C. (1997). Gain–loss frames on cooperation in two-person social dilemmas: A transformational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1093–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytical review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, M. (1960). The effect of motivational orientation upon trust and suspicion. Human Relations, 13, 123–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. The American Economic Review, 90, 980–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiedler, S., & Hillenbrand, A. (2020). Gain–loss framing in interdependent choice. Games and Economic Behavior, 121, 232–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaechter, S., Kolle, F., & Quercia, S. (2017). Reciprocity and the tragedies of maintaining and providing the commons. Nature Human Behavior, 1, 650–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2019a). Individual solutions to shared problems create a modern tragedy of the commons. Science Advances, 5, eaau7296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, J., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2019b). The rise and fall of cooperation through reputation and group polarization. Nature Communications, 10, e776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, G. (1968). Tragedy of commons. Science, 162, 1243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ispano, A., & Schwardmann, P. (2017). Cooperating over losses and competing over gains: A social dilemma experiment. Games and Economic Behavior, 105, 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 183–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314, 1560–1563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pruitt, D. G., & Kimmel, M. J. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and suggestions for the future. Annual Review of Psychology, 28, 363–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, Q. Z., Guo, H. Z., Wang, J. R., Zhang, J., Jiang, C. M., & Liu, Y. F. (2022). Differences in cooperation between social dilemmas of gain and loss. Judgment and Decision Making, 16, 1506–1524.Google Scholar
Van Beest, I., Van Dijk, E., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2005). Do-no-harm in coalition formation: Why losses inhibit exclusion and promote fairness cognitions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 609–617.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, E., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2021). Experimental games and social decision-making. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 415–438.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D., & Van Dijk, E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120, 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, J. M., Kopelman, S., & Messick, D. M. (2004). A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 281–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed