IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v362y2017icp69-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A survey suggests individual priorities are virtually unique: Implications for group dynamics, goal achievement and ecology

Author

Listed:
  • Bindewald, Eckart

Abstract

Recently, a game-theoretic analysis highlighted the attractiveness of motivation asymmetry and anti-coordination as a strategy for groups to achieve multiple simultaneous goals. To test the prevalence of motivation asymmetry, a survey was performed that asked participants to divide resources among four different societal goals pertaining to economic growth, poverty reduction, health and environmental protection. It is shown, that the survey responses can be modelled by a Dirichlet distribution. It is argued, that the observed high diversity in priority combinations − while at first sight a problem − can be viewed as evidence for an “individual purpose game”, where there is a one-to-one mapping between group participants and the goals they are highly motivated to achieve. Based on these results, two strategies (the majority strategy and the heroic effort strategy) for achieving multiple simultaneous goals in a group are discussed. It is argued, that motivation asymmetry can − if understood in the light of game theory of voluntary efforts − lead to highly effective groups. Also, important implications for the field of ecology are dissussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Bindewald, Eckart, 2017. "A survey suggests individual priorities are virtually unique: Implications for group dynamics, goal achievement and ecology," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 362(C), pages 69-79.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:362:y:2017:i:c:p:69-79
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.08.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380016304173
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2017.08.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruth Wageman & Frederick M. Gordon, 2005. "As the Twig Is Bent: How Group Values Shape Emergent Task Interdependence in Groups," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 687-700, December.
    2. Li An & Alex Zvoleff & Jianguo Liu & William Axinn, 2014. "Agent-Based Modeling in Coupled Human and Natural Systems (CHANS): Lessons from a Comparative Analysis," Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 104(4), pages 723-745, July.
    3. An, Li, 2012. "Modeling human decisions in coupled human and natural systems: Review of agent-based models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 25-36.
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    5. Bindewald, Eckart & Atallah, Shady S., 2017. "Achieving multiple goals via voluntary efforts and motivation asymmetry," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 354(C), pages 37-48.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yuan, Shiwei & Li, Xin & Du, Erhu, 2021. "Effects of farmers’ behavioral characteristics on crop choices and responses to water management policies," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 247(C).
    2. An, Li & Grimm, Volker & Sullivan, Abigail & Turner II, B.L. & Malleson, Nicolas & Heppenstall, Alison & Vincenot, Christian & Robinson, Derek & Ye, Xinyue & Liu, Jianguo & Lindkvist, Emilie & Tang, W, 2021. "Challenges, tasks, and opportunities in modeling agent-based complex systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 457(C).
    3. Zhang, Honghui & Zeng, Yongnian & Jin, Xiaobin & Shu, Bangrong & Zhou, Yinkang & Yang, Xuhong, 2016. "Simulating multi-objective land use optimization allocation using Multi-agent system—A case study in Changsha, China," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 320(C), pages 334-347.
    4. Chen, Yufeng & Xu, Liyan & Zhang, Xiao & Wang, Zilin & Li, Hailong & Yang, Yansheng & You, Hong & Li, Dihua, 2023. "Socio-econ-ecosystem multipurpose simulator (SEEMS): An easy-to-apply agent-based model for simulating small-scale coupled human and nature systems in biological conservation hotspots," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 476(C).
    5. Claudia Parra Paitan & Peter H. Verburg, 2019. "Methods to Assess the Impacts and Indirect Land Use Change Caused by Telecoupled Agricultural Supply Chains: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, February.
    6. Güth, W., 1997. "Boundedly Rational Decision Emergence -A General Perspective and Some Selective Illustrations-," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,29, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    7. Ficko, Andrej & Boncina, Andrej, 2013. "Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 34-43.
    8. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    9. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    10. Kumar, Alok, 2007. "Do the diversification choices of individual investors influence stock returns?," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 362-390, November.
    11. Jensen, Robert & Lleras-Muney, Adriana, 2012. "Does staying in school (and not working) prevent teen smoking and drinking?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 644-657.
    12. Strauss, Jason, 2007. "Return-of-Premium Endorsements for Living-Benefits Insurance Policies: Rational or Irrational?," MPRA Paper 11103, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Ellen Garbarino & Robert Slonim, 2007. "Preferences and decision errors in the winner’s curse," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 241-257, June.
    14. Elie Matta & Jean McGuire, 2008. "Too Risky to Hold? The Effect of Downside Risk, Accumulated Equity Wealth, and Firm Performance on CEO Equity Reduction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 567-580, August.
    15. Giuseppe Pernagallo & Benedetto Torrisi, 2020. "A theory of information overload applied to perfectly efficient financial markets," Review of Behavioral Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 14(2), pages 223-236, October.
    16. Prieto, Marc & Caemmerer, Barbara & Baltas, George, 2015. "Using a hedonic price model to test prospect theory assertions: The asymmetrical and nonlinear effect of reliability on used car prices," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 206-212.
    17. Moshe Levy & Haim Levy, 2013. "Prospect Theory: Much Ado About Nothing?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 7, pages 129-144, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    18. Joshua M. Epstein, 2007. "Agent-Based Computational Models and Generative Social Science," Introductory Chapters, in: Generative Social Science Studies in Agent-Based Computational Modeling, Princeton University Press.
    19. Willman, Paul & Fenton-O'Creevy, Mark & Nicholson, Nigel & Soane, Emma, 2002. "Traders, managers and loss aversion in investment banking: a field study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(1-2), pages 85-98.
    20. Schilirò, Daniele & Graziano, Mario, 2011. "Scelte e razionalità nei modelli economici: un'analisi multidisciplinare [Choices and rationality in economic models: a multidisciplinary analysis]," MPRA Paper 31910, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:362:y:2017:i:c:p:69-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.