When the rich contribute more in public good dilemmas: The role of provision point level

European Journal of Social Psychology

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 536-546

  De Cremer, David ^a,b  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b Department of Economic and Social Psychology ^*  (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34249663958     PISSN: 00462772     EISSN: 10990992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.368     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2. Berger, J., Zelditch, M., Jr., Anderson, B., & Cohen, B. P. (1972). Structural aspects of distributive justice: A status-value formulation. In J. Berger, M. Zelditch Jr., & B. Anderson (Eds.), Sociological theories in progress (Vol. 2, pp. 119-146). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
3. Brockner, J., Heuer, L., Siegel, P. A., Wiesenfeld, B., Martin, C., Grover, S., Reed, T., & Bjorgvinsson, S. (1998). The moderating effect of self-esteem in reaction to voice: Converging evidence from five studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 394-407.
4. Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 169-193.
5. De Cremer, D., & Blader, S. (2006). Why do people care about procedural fairness? The importance of belongingness in responding and attending to procedures. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 211-228.
6. De Cremer, D., Tyler, T. R., & den Ouden, N. (2005). Managing cooperation via procedural fairness: The mediating influence of self-other merging. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 393-406.
7. De Cremer, D., & van Dijk, E. (2002). Perceived criticality and contributions in public good dilemmas: A matter of feeling responsible to all? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5, 319-332.
8. De Cremer, D., & van Knippenberg, D. (2003). Cooperation with leaders in social dilemmas: On the effects of procedural fairness and outcome favorability in structural cooperation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91, 1-11.
9. De Cremer, D., & Van Vugt, M. (1999). Social identification effects in social dilemmas: A transformation of motives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 871-893.
10. De Cremer, D., & Van Vugt, M. (2002). Intergroup and intragroup aspects of leadership in social dilemmas: A relational model of cooperation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 126-136.
11. Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of voice and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108-119.
12. Hamburger, H. (1979). Games as models of social phenomena. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.
13. Hardin, R. (1982). Collective action. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
14. Kerr, N. L. (1992). Efficacy as a causal and moderating variable in social dilemmas. In W. Liebrand, D. Messick, & H. Wilke (Eds.), A social psychological approach to social dilemmas (pp. 59-80). New York: Pergamon.
15. Komorita, S. S., & Parks, C. D. (1994). Social dilemmas. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.
16. Lind, E. A. (2001). Thinking critical about justice judgments. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 220-226.
17. Messick, D. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1983). Solving social dilemmas. In L. Wheeler, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 11-44). Beverly Hills: Sage publications.
18. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press.
19. Rapoport, A. (1987). Research paradigms, and expected utility models for the provision of step-level public goods. Psychological Review, 94, 74-83.
20. Rapoport, A., Bornstein, G., & Erev, I. (1989). Intergroup competition for public goods: Effects of unequal resources and relative group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 748-756.
21. Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 323-345.
22. Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191). New York: Academic Press.
23. Van de Kragt, A., Obell, J., & Dawes, R. M. (1983). The minimal contributing set as a solution to public goods problems. American Political Science Review, 77, 112-122.
24. Van den Bos, K. (1999). What are we talking about when we talk about no-voice procedures? On the psychology of the fair outcome effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 560-577.
25. Van Dijk, E., & Grodzka, M. (1992). The influence of endowments asymmetry and information level on the contribution to a public step good. Journal of Economic Psychology, 13, 329-342.
26. Van Dijk, E., & Wilke, H. (1993). Differential interests, equity, and public good provision. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 1-16.
27. Van Dijk, E., & Wilke, H. (1994). Asymmetry of wealth and public good provision. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 352-359.
28. Van Dijk, E., & Wilke, H. (1995). Coordination rules in asymmetric social dilemmas: A comparison between public good dilemmas and resource dilemmas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 1-27.
29. Van Dijk, E., Wilke, H. A. M., Wilke, M., & Metman, L. (1999). What information do we use in social dilemmas? Environmental uncertainty and the employment of coordination rules. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 109-135.