1932

Abstract

Contemporary society is facing many social dilemmas—including climate change, COVID-19, and misinformation—characterized by a conflict between short-term self-interest and longer-term collective interest. The climate crisis requires paying costs today to reduce climate-related harms and risks that we face in the future. The COVID-19 crisis requires the less vulnerable to pay costs to benefit the more vulnerable in the face of great uncertainty. The misinformation crisis requires investing effort to assess truth and abstain from spreading attractive falsehoods. Addressing these crises requires an understanding of human cooperation. To that end, we present () an overview of mechanisms for the evolution of cooperation, including mechanisms based on similarity and interaction; () a discussion of how reputation can incentivize cooperation via conditional cooperation and signaling; and () a review of social preferences that undergird the proximate psychology of cooperation, including positive regard for others, parochialism, and egalitarianism. We discuss the three focal crises facing our society through the lens of cooperation, emphasizing how cooperation research can inform our efforts to address them.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-110044
2022-01-04
2024-07-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/psych/73/1/annurev-psych-020821-110044.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-110044&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aaldering H, Böhm R. 2020. Parochial versus universal cooperation: introducing a novel economic game of within- and between-group interaction. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 11:36–45
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aaldering H, Ten Velden FS, van Kleef GA, De Dreu CKW 2018. Parochial cooperation in nested intergroup dilemmas is reduced when it harms out-groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 114:909–23
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Allen J, Arechar AA, Pennycook G, Rand DG. 2021. Scaling up fact-checking using the wisdom of crowds. Sci. Adv 7:eabf4393
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Axelrod RM. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation New York: Basic Books
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bago B, Rand DG, Pennycook G. 2020. Fake news, fast and slow: Deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149:1608–13
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Balliet D, Mulder LB, Van Lange PAM. 2011. Reward, punishment, and cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 137:594–615
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Balliet D, Van Lange PAM. 2013. Trust, conflict, and cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 139:1090–1112
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Balliet D, Wu J, Van Lange PAM 2021. Indirect reciprocity, gossip, and reputation-based cooperation. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles 3 PAM Van Lange, ET Higgins, AW Kruglanski 265–87 New York: Guilford
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Barclay P. 2006. Reputational benefits for altruistic punishment. Evol. Hum. Behav. 27:325–44
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Barclay P, Willer R. 2007. Partner choice creates competitive altruism in humans. Proc. Biol. Sci. 274:749–53
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bastian B, Brewer MB, Duffy J, Van Lange PAM. 2019. From cash to crickets: The non-monetary value of a resource can promote human cooperation. J. Environ. Psychol. 61:10–19
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bloom P. 2016. Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion New York: Ecco
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Böhm R, Theelen MMP, Rusch H, Van Lange PAM 2018. Costs, needs, and integration efforts shape helping behavior toward refugees. PNAS 115:7284–89
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bolton GE, Katok E, Ockenfels A. 2005. Cooperation among strangers with limited information about reputation. J. Public Econ. 89:1457–68
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Brewer MB. 1999. The psychology of prejudice: in-group love and out-group hate?. J. Soc. Issues 55::429–44
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bronstein MV, Pennycook G, Bear A, Rand DG, Cannon TD. 2019. Belief in fake news is associated with delusionality, dogmatism, religious fundamentalism, and reduced analytic thinking. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 8:108–17
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Buchan N, Grimalda G, Wilson R, Brewer MB, Fatas E, Foddy M 2009. Globalization and human cooperation. PNAS 106:4138–42
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Campos-Mercade P, Meier A, Schneider F, Wengström E 2020. Prosociality predicts health behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic Work. Pap. 346 Dep. Econ., Univ. Zürich Zürich:
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Carethers JM. 2021. Insights into disparities observed with COVID-19. J Intern. Med. 289:463–73
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Cohn A, Maréchal MA, Tannenbaum D, Zünd CL 2019. Civic honesty around the globe. Science 365:644870–73
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Dal Bó P, Fréchette GR. 2011. The evolution of cooperation in infinitely repeated games: experimental evidence. Am. Econ. Rev. 101:411–29
    [Google Scholar]
  22. David O, Bar-Tal D. 2009. A sociopsychological conception of collective identity: the case of national identity as an example. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 13:354–79
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Dawood AA. 2020. Mutated COVID-19 may foretell a great risk for mankind in the future. New Microbes New Infect 35:100673
    [Google Scholar]
  24. De Keersmaecker J, Dunning D, Pennycook G, Rand DG, Sanchez C et al. 2019. Investigating the robustness of the illusory truth effect across individual differences in cognitive ability, need for cognitive closure, and cognitive style. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 46:204–15
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Effron DA, Raj M. 2019. Misinformation and morality: Encountering fake-news headlines makes them seem less unethical to publish and share. Psychol. Sci. 31:75–87
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ellemers N, De Gilder D 2021. Categorization and identity as motivational principles in intergroup relations. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles 3 PAM Van Lange, ET Higgins, AW Kruglanski 452–72 New York: Guilford.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Engel C. 2011. Dictator games: a meta study. Exp. Econ. 14:583–610
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Epley N, Schroeder J. 2014. Mistakenly seeking solitude. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143:1980–99
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Epstein Z, Pennycook G, Rand DG. 2020. Will the crowd game the algorithm? Using layperson judgments to combat misinformation on social media by downranking distrusted sources. CHI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems New York: ACM https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376232
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  30. Eriksson K, Strimling P, Gelfand MJ, Wu J, Abernathy J et al. 2021. Perception of the appropriate response to norm violations in 57 societies. Nat. Commun. 12:1481
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Favero N, Pedersen MJ. 2020. How to encourage “Togetherness by Keeping Apart” amid COVID-19? The ineffectiveness of prosocial and empathy appeals. J. Behav. Public Adm. 3:2 https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.32.167
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  32. Fehr E, Bernhard H, Rockenbach B. 2008. Egalitarianism in young children. Nature 454:1079–83
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Fehr E, Fischbacher U. 2004. Third-party punishment and social norms. Evol. Hum. Behav. 25:63–87
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Fehr E, Gächter S. 2000. Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. Am. Econ. Rev. 90:980–94
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Fehr E, Schmidt KM. 1999. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q. J. Econ. 114:817–68
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Fischbacher U, Gächter S. 2010. Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public goods experiments. Am. Econ. Rev. 100:541–56
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Fiske ST, Taylor SE. 2013. Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture London: SAGE, 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Fudenberg D, Rand DG, Dreber A. 2012. Slow to anger and fast to forgive: cooperation in an uncertain world. Am. Econ. Rev. 102:720–49
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Gifford R. 2011. The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am. Psychol. 66:290–302
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Gilead M, Trope Y, Liberman N. 2020. Above and beyond the concrete: the diverse representational substrates of the predictive brain. Behav. Brain Sci. 43:e121
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Gintis H, Smith EA, Bowles S. 2001. Costly signaling and cooperation. J. Theor. Biol. 213:103–19
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Grinberg N, Joseph K, Friedland L, Swire-Thompson B, Lazer D. 2019. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Science 363:6425374–78
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Guess AM, Lockett L, Benjamin L, Montgomery JM, Nyhan B, Reifler J. 2020.. “ Fake news” may have limited effects beyond increasing beliefs in false claims. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. 1:1 https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-004
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  44. Gunaydin G, Oztekin H, Karabulut DH, Salman‑Engin S 2021. Minimal social interactions with strangers predict greater subjective well‑being. J. Happiness Stud. 22:1839–53
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Halevy N, Weisel O, Bornstein G. 2012.. “ In-group love” and “out-group hate” in repeated interaction between groups. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 25:188–95
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Halloran ME, Longini IM Jr., Struchiner CJ. 2010. Design and Analysis of Vaccine Studies New York: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Hamilton WD. 1964. The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. J. Theor. Biol. 7:17–52
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Hardin G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–48
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Hauser OP, Hendriks A, Rand DG, Nowak MA. 2016. Think global, act local: preserving the global commons. Sci. Rep. 6:36079
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Hauser OP, Rand DG, Peysakhovich A, Nowak MA. 2014. Cooperating with the future. Nature 511:220–23
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Henrich J, Muthukrishna M. 2021. The origins and psychology of human cooperation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72:207–40
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Ho AK, Sidanius J, Kteily N, Sheehy-Skeffington J, Pratto F et al. 2015. The nature of social dominance orientation: theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO scale. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 109:1003–28
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Huckelba AL, Van Lange PAM 2020. The silent killer: consequences of climate change and how to survive past the year 2050. Sustainability 12:3757
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Irwin K, Simpson B. 2013. Do descriptive norms solve social dilemmas? Conformity and contributions in collective action groups. Soc. Forces 91:1057–84
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Jacquet J, Hagel K, Hauert C, Marotzke J, Röhl T, Milinski M. 2013. Intra- and intergenerational discounting in the climate game. Nat. Clim. Change 3:1025–28
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Joireman JA, Van Lange PAM, Van Vugt M. 2004. Who cares about the environmental impact of cars? Those with an eye toward the future. Environ. Behav. 36:187–206
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Jordan JJ, Hoffman M, Bloom P, Rand DG. 2016a. Third-party punishment as a costly signal of trustworthiness. Nature 530:7591473–76
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Jordan JJ, Hoffman M, Nowak MA, Rand DG 2016b. Uncalculating cooperation is used to signal trustworthiness. PNAS 113:318658–63
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Jordan JJ, Rand DG. 2020. Signaling when no one is watching: a reputation heuristics account of outrage and punishment in one-shot anonymous interactions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 118:57–88
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Jordan JJ, Yoeli E, Rand DG. 2020. Don't get it or don't spread it? Comparing self-interested versus prosocial motivations for COVID-19 prevention behaviors. PsyArXiv, April 3. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/yuq7x
    [Crossref]
  61. Kerr NL 1992. Efficacy as a causal and moderating variable in social dilemmas. Social Dilemmas: Theoretical Issues and Research Findings WBG Liebrand, DM Messick, HAM Wilke 59–80 Oxford, UK: Pergamon
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Klapwijk A, Van Lange PAM. 2009. Promoting cooperation and trust in “noisy” situations: the power of generosity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96:83–103
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Klein SA, Hilbig BE, Heck DW. 2017. Which is the greater good? A social dilemma paradigm disentangling environmentalism and cooperation. J. Environ. Psychol. 53:40–49
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Kraft-Todd GT, Bollinger B, Gillingham K, Lamp S, Rand D 2018. Credibility-enhancing displays promote the provision of non-normative public goods. Nature 563:7730245–48
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Kraft-Todd GT, Yoeli E, Bhanot S, Rand DG. 2015. Promoting cooperation in the field. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 3:96–101
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Krupp DB, DeBruine LM, Barclay P. 2008. A cue of kinship promotes cooperation for the public good. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29:49–55
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Lazer DM, Baum MA, Benkler Y, Berinsky AJ, Greenhill KM et al. 2018. The science of fake news. Science 359:63801094–96
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Levine EE, Barasch A, Rand D, Berman JZ, Small DA. 2018. Signaling emotion and reason in cooperation. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 147:702–19
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Loomba S, de Figueiredo A, Piatek SJ, de Graaf K, Larson HJ. 2021. Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5:337–48
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Luttrell A, Petty RE. 2021. Evaluations of self-focused versus other-focused arguments for social distancing: an extension of moral matching effects. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 12:946–54
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Manapat ML, Nowak MA, Rand DG. 2013. Information, irrationality, and the evolution of trust. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 90:57–75
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Manapat ML, Rand DG. 2012. Delayed and inconsistent information and the evolution of trust. Dyn. Games Appl. 2:401–10
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Martel C, Pennycook G, Rand DG. 2020. Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news. Cogn. Res. 5:47
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Mendes N, Steinbeis N, Bueno-Guerra N, Call J, Singer T. 2018. Preschool children and chimpanzees incur costs to watch punishment of antisocial others. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2:45–51
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Milinski M, Hilbe C, Semmann D, Sommerfeld R, Marotzke J. 2016. Humans choose representatives who enforce cooperation in social dilemmas through extortion. Nature Commun 7:11915
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Milinski M, Semmann D, Krambeck HJ. 2002. Reputation helps solve the “tragedy of the commons. Nature 415:424–26
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Mosleh M, Martel C, Eckles D, Rand DG 2021a. Shared partisanship dramatically increases social tie: formation in a Twitter field experiment. PNAS 118:7e2022761118
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Mosleh M, Pennycook G, Arechar AA, Rand DG. 2021b. Cognitive reflection correlates with behavior on Twitter. Nat. Commun. 12:921
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Nickerson RS. 1998. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2:175–220
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Nijssen SRR, Heyselaar E, Müller BCN, Bosse T. 2021. Do we take a robot's needs into account? The effect of humanization on prosocial considerations toward other human beings and robots. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw 24:332–36
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Nosenzo D, Quercia S, Sefton M. 2015. Cooperation in small groups: the effect of group size. Exp. Econ. 18:4–14
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Nowak MA. 2006. Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science 314:1560–63
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Nowak MA, Sigmund K 1993. A strategy of win-stay, lose-shift that outperforms tit-for-tat in the Prisoner's Dilemma game. Nature 364:56–58
    [Google Scholar]
  84. O'Connor J, Keil M 2017. The effects of construal level and small wins framing on an individual's commitment to an environmental initiative. J. Environ. Psychol. 52:1–10
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Ohtsuki H, Iwasa Y. 2006. The leading eight: social norms that can maintain cooperation by indirect reciprocity. J. Theor. Biol. 239:435–44
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Ostrom E, Walker J, Gardner R. 1992. Covenants with and without the sword: Self-governance is possible. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 86:404–17
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Pennycook G, Bear A, Collins E, Rand DG. 2020a. The implied truth effect: Attaching warnings to a subset of fake news headlines increases perceived accuracy of headlines without warnings. Manag. Sci. 66:4944–57
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Pennycook G, Cannon TD, Rand DG. 2018. Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 147:1865–80
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Pennycook G, Epstein Z, Mosleh M, Arechar AA, Eckles D, Rand DG. 2021. Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature 592:590–95
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Pennycook G, McPhetres J, Bago B, Rand DG 2020b. Beliefs about COVID-19 in Canada, the U.K., and the U.S.A.: a novel test of political polarization and motivated reasoning. PsyArXiv, April 14. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zhjkp
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  91. Pennycook G, McPhetres J, Zhang Y, Lu JG, Rand DG. 2020c. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychol. Sci. 31:770–80
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Pennycook G, Rand DG 2019a. Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. PNAS 116:72521–26
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Pennycook G, Rand DG. 2019b. Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition 188:39–50
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Pennycook G, Rand DG 2021a. Research note: examining false beliefs about voter fraud in the wake of the 2020 presidential election. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. 2:1 https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-51
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  95. Pennycook G, Rand DG. 2021b. The psychology of fake news. Trends Cogn. Sci. 25:5388–402
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Peperkoorn LS, Becker DV, Balliet D, Columbus S, Molho C, Van Lange PAM 2020. The prevalence of dyads in social life. PLOS ONE 15:e0244188
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Petersen M, Osmundsen M, Arceneaux K. 2018. The “need for chaos” and motivations to share hostile political rumors. PsyArXiv, Sept. 1. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6m4ts
    [Crossref]
  98. Peysakhovich A, Nowak MA, Rand DG. 2014. Humans display a “cooperative phenotype” that is domain general and temporally stable. Nat. Commun. 5:4939
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Pfattheicher S, Nockur L, Böhm R, Sassenrath C, Petersen M. 2020. The emotional path to action: Empathy promotes physical distancing and wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. PsyArXiv, Sept. 29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620964422
    [Crossref]
  100. Pfeiffer T, Tran L, Krimme C, Rand DG. 2012. The value of reputation. J. R. Soc. Interface 9:2791–97
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Moorman RH, Fetter R. 1990. Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 1:107–42
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Rand DG, Arbesman S, Christakis NA 2011. Dynamic social networks promote cooperation in experiments with humans. PNAS 108:19193–98
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Rand DG, Dreber A, Ellingsen T, Fudenberg D, Nowak MA. 2009. Positive interactions promote public cooperation. Science 325:1272–75
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Rand DG, Fudenberg D, Dreber A. 2015. It's the thought that counts: the role of intentions in noisy repeated games. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 116:481–99
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Rand DG, Nowak MA. 2013. Human cooperation. Trends Cogn. Sci. 17:413–25
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Reinders Folmer CP, Klapwijk A, De Cremer D, Van Lange PAM 2012. One for all: what representing a group may do to us. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48:1047–56
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Reinders Folmer CP, Wildschut T, De Cremer D, Van Lange PAM 2019. Coping with noise in social dilemmas: Group representatives fare worse than individuals because they lack trust in others’ benign intentions. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 22:200–14
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Rogers R. 2020. Research note: The scale of Facebook's problem depends upon how ‘fake news’ is classified. Harv. Kennedy Sch. Misinformation Rev. 1:6 https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-43
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  109. Ross RM, Rand D, Pennycook G 2019. Beyond “fake news”: the role of analytic thinking in the detection of inaccuracy and partisan bias in news headlines. PsyArXiv, Nov. 13. http://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cgsx6
    [Crossref]
  110. Shirado H, Fu F, Fowler JH, Christakis NA. 2013. Quality versus quantity of social ties in experimental cooperative networks. Nat. Commun. 4:2814
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Sidanius J, Pratto F 2012. Social dominance theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology 2 PAM Van Lange, AW Kruglanski, ET Higgins 418–38 Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Singer T, Steinbeis N. 2009. Differential roles of fairness- and compassion-based motivations for cooperation, defection, and punishment. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1167:41–50
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Sommerfeld RD, Krambeck HJ, Semmann D, Milinski M 2007. Gossip as an alternative for direct observation in games of reciprocity. PNAS 104:17425–40
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Steg L, Bolderdijk JW, Keizer K, Perlaviciute G. 2014. An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: the role of values, situational factors and goals. J. Environ. Psychol. 38:104–15
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Stern PC, Dietz T. 1994. The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues 50:65–84
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Tajfel H, Turner JC 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. WG Austin, S Worchel 33–47 Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Trope Y, Liberman N. 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117:440–63
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Van Bavel JJ, Baicker K, Boggio PS. et al. 2020. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4:460–71
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Van der Linden S, Maibach E, Cook J, Leiserowitz A, Lewandowsky S. 2017. Inoculating against misinformation. Science 358:63671141–42
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Van der Linden S, Maibach E, Leiserowitz A. 2015. Improving public engagement with climate change: five “best practice” insights from psychological science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10:758–63
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Van Dijk E, De Dreu CKW. 2021. Experimental games and social decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72:415–38
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Van Doesum NJ, De Vries RE, Blokland AAJ, Hill JM, Kuhlman DM et al. 2019a. Social mindfulness: prosocial the active way. J. Posit. Psychol. 15:183–93
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Van Doesum NJ, Karremans J, Fikke R, De Lange M, Van Lange PAM 2019b. Social mindfulness in the real world: The physical presence of others induces other-regarding motivation. Soc. Influence 13:209–22
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Van Doesum NJ, Murphy R, Aharonov-Majar E, Athenstaedt U, Au WT et al. 2021. Social mindfulness and prosociality across the globe. PNAS 118:e2023846118
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Van Doesum NJ, Tybur JB, Van Lange PAM. 2017. Class impressions: Higher social class elicits lower prosociality. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 68:11–20
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Van Doesum NJ, Van Lange DAW, Van Lange PAM. 2013. Social mindfulness: skill and will to navigate the social world. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 105:86–103
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Van Lange PAM. 1999. The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: an integrative model of social value orientation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77:337–49
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Van Lange PAM. 2021. A broader mind: concern with other humans, equality, and animals. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 42:109–13
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Van Lange PAM, Columbus S 2021. Vitamin S: Why is social contact, even with strangers, so important to well-being?. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 30:267–73
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Van Lange PAM, Joireman JA, Milinski M. 2018. Climate change: what psychology can offer in terms of insights and solutions. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 27:269–74
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Van Lange PAM, Joireman JA, Parks CD, Van Dijk E. 2013. The psychology of social dilemmas: a review. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 120:125–41
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Van Lange PAM, Ouwerkerk JW, Tazelaar MJ. 2002. How to overcome the detrimental effects of noise in social interaction: the benefits of generosity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82:768–80
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Van Prooijen JW, Ståhl T, Eek D, Van Lange PAM. 2012. Injustice for all or just for me? Social value orientation predicts responses to own versus other's procedures. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38:1247–58
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Van Veelen M. 2009. Group selection, kin selection, altruism and cooperation: when inclusive fitness is right and when it can be wrong. J. Theor. Biol. 259:589–600
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S. 2018. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359:63801146–51
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Weber EU 2006. Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: why global warming does not scare us (yet). Clim. Change 77:103–20
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Wedekind C, Milinski M. 2000. Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science 288:850–52
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Weisel O, Böhm R. 2015.. “ Ingroup love” and “outgroup hate” in intergroup conflict between natural groups. J Exp. Soc. Psychol. 60:110–20
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Willer R. 2009. Groups reward individual sacrifice: the status solution to the collective action problem. Am. Sociol. Rev. 74:23–43
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Wit AP, Kerr NL. 2002.. “ Me versus just us versus us all” categorization and cooperation in nested social dilemmas. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 83:616–37
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Wittenberg C, Berinsky AJ 2020. Misinformation and its correction. Social Media and Democracy: The State of the Field and Prospects for Reform N. Persily, JA Tucker 163–197 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Wu J, Balliet D, Peperkoorn LS, Romano A, Van Lange PAM. 2020. Cooperation in groups of different sizes: the effects of punishment and reputation-based partner choice. Front. Psychol. 10:2956
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Wu J, Balliet D, Van Lange PAM. 2016a. Gossip versus punishment: the efficiency of reputation to promote and maintain cooperation. Sci. Rep. 6:23919
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Wu J, Balliet D, Van Lange PAM. 2016b. Reputation management: why and how gossip enhances generosity. Evol. Hum. Behav. 37:193–201
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Yamagishi T. 1986. The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51:110–16
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Yamagishi T, Jin N, Kiyonari T. 1999. Bounded generalized reciprocity: ingroup favoritism and ingroup boasting. Adv. Group Proc. 16:161–97
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Yoeli E, Hoffman M, Rand DG, Nowak MA. 2013. Powering up with indirect reciprocity in a large-scale field experiment. PNAS 110:210424–29
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Zhang L, Tao Y, Shen M, Fairley CK, Guo Y. 2020. Can self-imposed prevention measures mitigate the COVID-19 epidemic?. PLOS Med 17:7e1003240
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-110044
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-110044
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error