Jun 02, 2022 06:00:00

What kind of communication is effective for groups to work together to achieve something?

There are many situations in the world where it is more beneficial for multiple people to collaborate, and even in past research, collective action can be useful

for reducing pollution and waste , controlling overfishing, and sharing data among scientists. I already know. However, there is a dilemma in group action that 'the person who acts first may lose', so it is often difficult to perform group action well. So research teams such as Queen Mary University of London, the University of Greenwich, and the Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge studied the question, 'What is the best way to communicate to encourage people to take collective action?'

Verbal interaction in a social dilemma --Zoë Adams, Agata Ludwiczak, Devyani Sharma, Magda Osman, 2022
https://doi.org/10.1177/10434631221094555

How to express yourself if you want others to cooperate with you – new research
https://theconversation.com/how-to-express-yourself-if-you-want-others-to-cooperate-with-you-new-research-182705

In the field of economics, research on the determination of collective action may be conducted through experiments such as ' Prisoner's Dilemma ' and ' Public Goods Game '. In a public goods game where a member with some money decides how much money to spend in a'public pot', the money put into the public pot is distributed to each member with interest, so everyone It is a mechanism that the greatest merit can be obtained if all the funds are invested in cooperation with each other. However, since the funds in the public pot are evenly distributed to the members who did not invest the funds in the public pot, it is possible that one of the members thinks, 'Let's receive only the distribution without investing the funds in the public pot.' there is.

Specific examples of public goods games are as follows.

1: First, distribute 1000 yen to all members (5 people).
2: Decide how much to throw in the public pot.
3: Assuming that the funds invested in the public pot will be '1.5 times', if all five people invest the funds in the public pot, the total amount of funds in the public pot will be '1000 x 5 x 1.5 = 7500 yen'. If only one person does not invest money in the public pot, it will be '1000 x (5-1) x 1.5 = 6000 yen'.
4: Public pot funds are distributed to all members. If all five people invest money in the public pot, the share per person will be '7500/5 = 1500 yen'. If only one person does not invest the funds in the public pot, the share of the member who invested the funds will be '6000 yen ÷ 5 = 1200 yen', but the possession of the members who did not invest the funds will be '1000 yen + (6000 yen)'. Yen ÷ 5) = 2200 Yen ”, so the members who did not invest the funds will get the most benefit.

The research team points out that an interesting aspect of these games is that 'each member of the group is exposed to uncertainty.' If each member wants to work together to get the maximum benefit, but don't know if others have the same idea, investing money in a public pot involves an altruistic factor. ..

People's choices depend on their social status within the group and the amount of assets they are willing to lose, but making this type of decision often involves 'communication between members.' Therefore, showing your intentions in communication and persuading other members may help maximize the benefits of public goods games, but again, 'I don't know if what I'm talking about is true. Instead, you may just want to show yourself better with altruistic words and deeds, 'the research team pointed out.

Therefore, the research team played a public goods game under multiple conditions to investigate the effect of communication between members on decisions. First, the research team divided the 90 subjects into teams of 5 each, and said, 'A group that declares the amount of money that members will invest in the public pot (the declared amount may be different from the amount actually invested).' Assigned to one of the conditions: 'Group where the amount actually invested by the member in the public pot is revealed' and 'Group where the amount invested by the member in the public pot is not revealed'.

In the first round, members decide how much money they will invest in the public pot, and the public pot will be distributed without mutual communication. Then, after the information was disclosed according to the above three conditions, group members were given the opportunity to discuss their opinions and group policies via online chat. In other words, there were teams that could discuss based on information such as which members threw in the public pot or declared to throw, and teams that talked without information.

After discussions in online chat, the second round of the same public goods game took place. As a result, 'the group that declares the amount of money that the member invests in the public pot' and 'the group that reveals the amount that the member actually invested in the public pot' are from 'the group that the amount that the member actually invested in the public pot is not revealed'. Also cooperated and found that it was much more likely that more money would be invested in the public pot. The research team claims that the situation in which their declarations and actions were disclosed to group members changed their behavior.

In addition, there are members who clearly and specifically state that they will invest money in the public pot, rather than vague words such as 'I will donate more to the public pot next time' and 'if other members do it' in the discussion. It was also suggested that other members could easily cooperate. It is believed that this is because vague words increase distrust within the group and diminish the sense of duty. In addition, asking other members whether to specifically invest in public pots was also an important factor in strengthening collective action.

The research team pointed out that speaking in a way that shows a sense of solidarity and authority strengthens the collective identity of the group and establishes a norm of cooperation. He also found that humor and warm expressions were effective in promoting collective action, and that they were less cooperative in groups with formal and selfish communication. 'In short, demonstrating strong leadership through positive remarks, encouraging with motivational phrases, and making people feel'I'm part of a group'is to get others to cooperate. It's an important step, 'said the research team.