Nalis Dario, Schütz Astrid, Pastukhov Alexander
Department of Psychology, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany.
Front Psychol. 2018 Feb 13;9:138. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00138. eCollection 2018.
In win-win solutions, all parties benefit more from the solution than they would if they each pursued their own individual goals. Such solutions are beneficial at individual and collective levels and thus represent optimal solutions. Win-win solutions are desirable but often difficult to find. To allow the study of individual differences and situational factors that help or hinder the detection of win-win solutions, we created a paradigm that fills a gap in the repertoire of psychological instruments used to assess collaboration, cooperation, negotiation, and prosocial behavior. The new paradigm differs from previous ones in two aspects: (a) In existing paradigms that focus on social motivation, possible strategies are evident, whereas we focused here on the question of whether people can detect the solution and thus disentangle ability from motivation, (b) Paradigms that focus on cooperation typically entail a risk associated with the partner's defection, whereas cooperation in our paradigm is not associated with risk. We adjusted the Trucking Game-a method for assessing bargaining-to include a situation in which two parties can help each other achieve their respective goals and thus benefit over and above the pursuit of individual goals or compromising. We tested scenario-based and interaction-based versions with samples of 154 and 112 participants, respectively. Almost one third of the participants or dyads found the win-win solution. General mental abilities were not related to detecting the win-win solution in either version. The paradigm provides a way to extend research on cooperation and conflict and can thus be useful for research and training.
在双赢解决方案中，所有各方从该解决方案中获得的利益比他们各自追求个人目标时更多。此类解决方案在个人和集体层面都是有益的，因此代表了最优解决方案。双赢解决方案是理想的，但往往很难找到。为了研究有助于或阻碍发现双赢解决方案的个体差异和情境因素，我们创建了一种范式，填补了用于评估协作、合作、谈判和亲社会行为的心理工具库中的一个空白。新范式在两个方面与以前的范式不同：（a）在现有的侧重于社会动机的范式中，可能的策略是明显的，而我们在此关注的问题是人们是否能够发现解决方案，从而将能力与动机区分开来；（b）侧重于合作的范式通常伴随着与合作伙伴背叛相关的风险，而我们范式中的合作与风险无关。我们调整了货运游戏——一种评估讨价还价的方法——以纳入一种情况，即双方可以相互帮助实现各自的目标，从而在追求个人目标或妥协之外获得更多利益。我们分别用154名和112名参与者的样本测试了基于情景和基于互动的版本。近三分之一的参与者或二元组找到了双赢解决方案。在两个版本中，一般智力与发现双赢解决方案均无关。该范式为扩展合作与冲突研究提供了一种方法，因此可用于研究和培训。
