his.sePublications
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
BETA
Eek, Daniel
Publications (7 of 7) Show all publications
Kazemi, A. & Eek, D. (2008). Promoting Cooperation in Social Dilemmas via Fairness Norms and Group Goals. In: Anders Biel, Daniel Eek, Tommy Gärling, Mathias Gustafsson (Ed.), New Issues and Paradigms in Research on Social Dilemmas: (pp. 72-92). New York: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Promoting Cooperation in Social Dilemmas via Fairness Norms and Group Goals
2008 (English)In: New Issues and Paradigms in Research on Social Dilemmas / [ed] Anders Biel, Daniel Eek, Tommy Gärling, Mathias Gustafsson, New York: Springer Science+Business Media B.V., 2008, p. 72-92Chapter in book (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
New York: Springer Science+Business Media B.V., 2008
National Category
Social Sciences
Research subject
Humanities and Social sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:his:diva-3442 (URN)10.1007/978-0-387-72596-3_6 (DOI)2-s2.0-84868877993 (Scopus ID)978-0-387-72595-6 (ISBN)978-0-387-72596-3 (ISBN)
Available from: 2009-10-19 Created: 2009-10-19 Last updated: 2017-11-27Bibliographically approved
Kazemi, A. & Eek, D. (2007). Effects of Group Goal and Resource Valence on Allocation Preferences in Public Good Dilemmas. Social behavior and personality, 35(6), 803-818
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Effects of Group Goal and Resource Valence on Allocation Preferences in Public Good Dilemmas
2007 (English)In: Social behavior and personality, ISSN 0301-2212, E-ISSN 1179-6391, Vol. 35, no 6, p. 803-818Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Previous research has not been conclusive as to whether people prefer different or identical allocation principles in distributions of positive and negative outcomes. Thus, in this study, the question of whether or not group goal accounts for preferred allocation of positive and negative outcomes was posed. As hypothesized for division of surpluses, the results showed that relationship-oriented goals predicted preferences for equality, whereas performance oriented goals predicted preferences for equity. Moreover, the results were the same for allocation of deficits. This suggests that people implicitly have different orientations, or goals, in mind in group situations that similarly influence the way they prefer to allocate positive and negative outcomes. The results also showed that participants allocating deficits deviated to a larger extent from the allocation principles than did participants allocating surpluses.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Society for Personality Research, 2007
Keywords
public good dilemma, group goal, fairness, allocation preference, resource valence.
National Category
Psychology
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:his:diva-2449 (URN)10.2224/sbp.2007.35.6.803 (DOI)000250178600007 ()2-s2.0-34948888253 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2008-12-10 Created: 2008-12-10 Last updated: 2017-12-14Bibliographically approved
Loukopoulos, P., Eek, D., Gärling, T. & Fujii, S. (2006). Palatable punishment in real-world social dilemmas: Punishing others to increase cooperation among the unpunished. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(5), 1274-1290
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Palatable punishment in real-world social dilemmas: Punishing others to increase cooperation among the unpunished
2006 (English)In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology, ISSN 0021-9029, E-ISSN 1559-1816, Vol. 36, no 5, p. 1274-1290Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Social-dilemma research has shown that imposing sanctions on defection may increase cooperation, a principle behind attempts to solve real-world social dilemmas. Yet sanctioning systems are often difficult to implement: They are unpopular and often have large surveillance and enforcement costs. A new sanctioning system, intentionally punishing defection intermittently for some but not all group members, is shown to increase cooperation among those not punished, a finding labeled the spillover effect. This study suggests that the effect cannot be attributed simply to cooperative tendencies, as factors affecting cooperation do not affect the effect's size. The benefits of such a sanctioning system, which preserves the characteristics of social dilemmas, could include minimization of surveillance and enforcement costs, and greater public acceptability.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Blackwell Publishing, 2006
National Category
Social Sciences
Research subject
Humanities and Social sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:his:diva-1980 (URN)10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00042.x (DOI)000237122100011 ()2-s2.0-33645705099 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2008-04-18 Created: 2008-04-18 Last updated: 2017-12-12Bibliographically approved
Eek, D. & Gärling, T. (2006). Prosocials prefer equal outcomes to maximizing joint outcome. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(2), 321-337
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Prosocials prefer equal outcomes to maximizing joint outcome
2006 (English)In: British Journal of Social Psychology, ISSN 0144-6665, E-ISSN 2044-8309, Vol. 45, no 2, p. 321-337Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Existing theories of social value orientations posit that prosocials maximize joint outcomes whereas proselfs maximize outcomes to themselves. Three studies employing a total of 157 undergraduates were conducted to test the alternative hypothesis that prosocials prefer equal outcomes to maximizing joint outcome. In study 1 participants completed the Triple-Dominance Measure of Social Values in which a fourth alternative that distributed the largest joint outcome unequally was added to the alternative that distributed the outcomes equally. In accordance with the hypothesis, prosocials preferred the equal-outcome alternative to the joint-outcome alternative. Study 2 confirmed and extended these results by demonstrating that prosocials preferred equal outcomes to larger joint outcomes that were unequally distributed but provided both with larger outcomes. Study 3 demonstrated that in a modified prisoner's dilemma game, a preference for equal outcomes to a larger joint outcome resulted in that prosocials cooperated when they believed or knew that the other cooperated, and defected when they believed or knew that the other defected.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
British Psychological Society, 2006
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:his:diva-1979 (URN)10.1348/014466605X52290 (DOI)000238910200006 ()16762104 (PubMedID)2-s2.0-33746042519 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2008-04-18 Created: 2008-04-18 Last updated: 2017-12-12Bibliographically approved
Eek, D. & Selart, M. (2005). Is there a pro-self component behind the prominence effect?: Individual resource allocation decisions with communities as potential beneficiaries. International Journal of Psychology, 40(6), 429-440
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Is there a pro-self component behind the prominence effect?: Individual resource allocation decisions with communities as potential beneficiaries
2005 (English)In: International Journal of Psychology, ISSN 0020-7594, E-ISSN 1464-066X, Vol. 40, no 6, p. 429-440Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

An important problem for decision-makers in society deals with the efficient and equitable allocation of scarce resources to individuals and groups. The significance of this problem is rapidly growing since there is a rising demand for scarce resources all over the world. Such resource dilemmas belong to a conceptually broader class of situations known as social dilemmas. In this type of dilemma, individual choices that appear "rational" often result in suboptimal group outcomes. In this article we study how people make monetary allocation decisions between the community where they live and a neighbouring community, with the aim of finding out to what extent these decisions are subject to biased over-weighting. The manuscript reports four experiments that deal with the way individuals make such allocation decisions when the potential beneficiaries are such communities. The specific goal of these experiments is to gauge the amount of bias in the weights that people assign to the various beneficiaries. Taken together, the results from all the four experiments suggest that making the gain of the neighbouring community prominent to a higher extent de-biases the outcomes (the prominence effect) compared to when own community gain is made prominent. Place identity is discussed as a potentially important factor in this connection. Hence, it may be argued that there seems to be some kind of a pro-self component that is able to explain a large part of the variance observed for the prominence effect. Connections between such a factor and in-group favouritism are discussed. A strength of the study was that these major results appeared to be quite robust when considered as task effects, as the salience of the manipulated context factors in the studies (in terms of reliable main or interaction effects) did not distort them.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2005
National Category
Social Sciences
Research subject
Humanities and Social sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:his:diva-1745 (URN)10.1080/00207590544000103 (DOI)000233967100007 ()2-s2.0-33744981184 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2007-08-27 Created: 2007-08-27 Last updated: 2019-11-20Bibliographically approved
Eek, D. (2005). Varför samarbeta?: om hur människor fattar beslut. Perspektiv på Högskolan i Skövde, 2(1), 12-15
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Varför samarbeta?: om hur människor fattar beslut
2005 (Swedish)In: Perspektiv på Högskolan i Skövde, ISSN 1653-8242, Vol. 2, no 1, p. 12-15Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.)) Published
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Högskolan i Skövde, 2005
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:his:diva-1638 (URN)
Available from: 2007-08-03 Created: 2007-08-03 Last updated: 2017-11-27
Eek, D. & Rikner, K. (2005). What determines people's decisions whether or not to report sick?. Applied Economics, 37(5), 533-543
Open this publication in new window or tab >>What determines people's decisions whether or not to report sick?
2005 (English)In: Applied Economics, ISSN 0003-6846, E-ISSN 1466-4283, Vol. 37, no 5, p. 533-543Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Swedish employees who are temporarily absent from work are compensated for the loss of income from the governmentally regulated sickness insurance. During the 1990s, when the societal costs for covering sickness absence raised dramatically, the sickness insurance underwent several changes, which raised questions about how people reacted to the changes made. This article is based on a survey where individuals were asked several questions about whether they would go to work or report sick, given that they actually felt ill. Respondents were asked the same questions under different hypothetical compensations. The results indicated strong effects of factors related to the financial loss of being absent on the propensity to report sick.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Routledge, 2005
National Category
Social Sciences
Research subject
Humanities and Social sciences
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:his:diva-1591 (URN)10.1080/0003684042000319163 (DOI)000228186300005 ()2-s2.0-16244385874 (Scopus ID)
Available from: 2008-01-09 Created: 2008-01-09 Last updated: 2017-12-12Bibliographically approved
Organisations

Search in DiVA

Show all publications