Tyler - Why people cooperate: the role of social motivations

What connects people to groups, organizations, and societies? Why do people under some conditions throw their lot in with others and act on behalf of collectivities rather than pursuing their personal self-interest, while in other situations it is difficult or even impossible to motivate such cooperative efforts and people intently pursue their personal self-interest? In other words, what are the reasons that people have for cooperating with others when they are in a group, organization, community, or society? Answering this question is central to all of the social sciences.

A natural tendency, widely found in social psychology as well as in sociology, political science, economics, management, law, and public policy, is to view people as primarily relating to groups instrumentallythat is, cooperating to the degree that others are seen as potential sources of material rewards and/or material costs. Rewards and costs can potentially be thought of in many ways, but are frequently framed in terms of the type of rewards and costs associated with monetary gains or losses. Closely associated to this framing of rewards and costs are the physical pleasures associated with obtaining material rewards or the pain of experiencing material losses. One reason for joining with others in groups is to be better able to obtain rewards and avoid costs and to the extent that people are motivated in this way their relationship is linked to the degree to which they view their potential resource exchanges with others as personally beneficial.

This book argues that the core motivation shaping peoples relationships with others is not of this material type. While not denying the importance of material rewards and costs, it is argued that for most people, most of the time, the connections dominating their relationship with others are related to social links. And, in particular, it is suggested that the extent to which people are motivated to act on behalf of others, cooperating with groups, organizations, and societies, rather than pursuing self-interested objectives, is defined by the nature and strength of peoples social connections to others.

What are the social links that connect people to others? They are long-term connections to groups that are based upon attitudes, emotional connections, shared identities, common values, trust in the character and motivations of others, and a joint commitment to using fair procedures to exercise authority and make decisions. All of these connections share a linkage based upon social ties and are distinct from concerns about personal material gains and losses. Of course, material gains and losses are also important. However, it will be argued that the core factors shaping cooperation, especially voluntary cooperation, are social. Because of the centrality of social motivations to cooperation it will be further argued that the viability of groups, organizations, and societies is linked to the ability of groups to create and sustain supportive social motivations among their members.

While I argue that social links underlie peoples behavior across all types of social settings, the strength of that motivation is often most obvious in situations in which people cooperate when that cooperation makes little sense in terms of the personal rewards and costs they are facing. When the risks of cooperation are high and the likelihood of gains seems remote, it is hard to understand peoples willingness to act on behalf of collectivities.

Consider a common problematic situation, risking injury or death to fight for ones country. Although coercion in the form of conscription is common in such situations, and in conflict situations there are risks associated with shirking from battle, as well as with fighting, it is striking how often people are motivated by their social connections to their group to take risks for their group. As an example, in his well-known book about the American revolution David McCullough describes George Washingtons efforts to hold the American army together in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds of defeat by the British. Washington did so by appealing to identity and values, arguing that if the soldiers would stay they would render that service to the cause of liberty, and to your country, which you can probably never do under other circumstance (McCullough 2005, 286). Similarly, in Henry V, William Shakespeare imagines the king, prior to the Battle of Agincourt, appealing to common identity, saying we few, we happy few, we band of brothersfor whoever sheds his blood with me today shall be my brother (act 4, scene 3).

Efforts to inspire voluntary commitment of the type outlined are important because the only obedience worth soliciting and maintaining [from soldiers] is one born of love not fear. It is not money, legislation, or conscriptionbut the peoples attachment to their government from the sense of the deep stake they have in such a glorious institution. This type of obedience is freely given and inspired by love of country (Samet 2004, 7). Consequently, it is valuable to the group, which does not have toand in these dire moments cannotcreate incentives or credible punishments sufficient to motivate desired behavior. As McCullough makes clear, the revolutionary soldiers who were inspired by Washingtons plea well understood that they faced great risks and hardships that many anticipated (correctly) they would not survive. A rational actor would not have stayed. This emphasis on socially motivated commitment and on the willing exercise of voluntary initiative in fighting (taking risks) for ones country that exists in democratic culture is generally credited with the superior military effectiveness of democratic armies (Reiter and Stam 2002).