A short piece in the New York Times by Harvard economists and Yale psychologists has a suggestion that may surprise you – or maybe not – about people’s motivation to cooperate.

The authors focus on the “tragedy of the commons” which is the situation “where individuals acting independently and rationally according to each’s self-interest behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by depleting some common resource.”

They argue that for people faced with a choice that would benefit them at the expense of the whole group, reputational concerns generally have greater impact than material incentives.

They write, “When your choices are observable by others, it makes it possible for good actions to benefit your reputation. Similarly, norms make you feel you’re expected to cooperate in a given situation, and that people may think poorly of you if they learn you are not doing your part.”

By contrast, they argue that material incentives often are too small to make a difference and that getting material benefits “muddies the reputational benefits of cooperating.”

These are very broad generalizations and, even in their own terms, the effects depend on the amount of the respective benefits and costs.

Moreover, the authors don’t discuss other possible motivations, such as a desire to act consistently with one’s values and self-image.

Read original article


Tags: