Abstract
Individuals with an advantageous position during a negotiation possess
leverage over their partners. Several studies with adults have
investigated how leverage can influence the coordination strategies of
individuals when conflicts of interest arise. In this study, we explored
how pairs of 7-year-old children solved a coordination game (based on
the Snowdrift scenario) when one child had leverage over the other
child. We presented a social dilemma in the form of an unequal reward
distribution on a rotating tray. The rotating tray could be accessed by
both children. The child who waited longer to act received the best
outcome, but if both children waited too long, they would lose the
rewards. In addition, one child could forgo the access to the rotating
tray for an alternative option—the leverage. Although children rarely
used their leverage strategically, children with access to the
alternative were less likely to play the social dilemma, especially when
their leverage was larger. Furthermore, children waited longer to act
as the leverage decreased. Finally, children almost never failed to
coordinate. The results hint to a trade-off between maximizing benefits
while maintaining long-term collaboration in complex scenarios where
strategies such as turn taking are hard to implement.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Article number | 104963 |
Journal | Journal of Experimental Child Psychology |
Volume | 199 |
Early online date | 6 Aug 2020 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Nov 2020 |
Keywords
- Leverage
- Conflict of interest
- Cooperation
- Children