Talking Behind Your Back: Communication and Team Cooperation

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4143

References

  • Adams JS (1965) Inequity in social exchange. Berkowitz L, ed. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 2 (Academic Press, New York), 267–299.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Agranov M, Tergiman C (2014) Communication in multilateral bargaining. J. Public Econom. 118(2014):75–85.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Agranov M, Yariv L (2018) Collusion through communication in auctions. Games Econom. Behav. 107(January):93–108.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Balliet D (2010) Communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analytic review. J. Conflict Resolution 54(1):39–57.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Baranski A, Kagel JH (2015) Communication in legislative bargaining. J. Econom. Sci. Assoc. 1(1):59–71.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Baron DP, Ferejohn JA (1989) Bargaining in legislatures. Amer. Political Sci. Rev. 83(4):1181–1206.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Baron DP, Bowen TR, Nunnari S (2017) Durable coalitions and communication: Public vs. private negotiations. J. Public Econom. 156(2017):1–13.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bolton GE, Chatterjee K, McGinn KL (2003) How communication links influence coalition bargaining: A laboratory investigation. Management Sci. 49(5):583–598.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bolton G, Greiner B, Ockenfels A (2013) Engineering trust: Reciprocity in the production of reputation information. Management Sci. 59(2):265–285.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Bolton G, Greiner B, Ockenfels A (2018) Dispute resolution or escalation? the strategic gaming of feedback withdrawal options in online markets. Management Sci. 64(9):4009–4031.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Brosig J, Weimann J, Ockenfels A (2003) The effect of communication media on cooperation. German Econom. Rev. 4(2):217–241.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Cappelen AW, Hole AD, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B (2007) The pluralism of fairness ideals: An experimental approach. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(3):818–827.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Cason TN, Sheremeta RM, Zhang J (2012) Communication and efficiency in competitive coordination games. Games Econom. Behav. 76(1):26–43.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Casoria F, Riedl A, Werner P (2020) Behavioral aspects of communication in organizations. Zimmermann KF, ed. Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics (Springer, Cham, Switzerland), 1–31.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Chaudhuri A (2011) Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: A selective survey of the literature. Experiment. Econom. 14(1):47–83.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Chen Y, Li S (2009) Group identity and social preferences. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(1):431–457.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Dawes RM, McTavish J, Shaklee H (1977) Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people’s behavior in a commons dilemma situation. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 35(1):1–11.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Dong L, Huang L (2018) Fairness and favoritism in teams. Games 9(3):65.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Dong L, Falvey R, Luckraz S (2019) Fair share and social efficiency: A mechanism in which peers decide on the payoff division. Games Econom. Behav. 115(2019):209–224.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fischbacher U (2007) Z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 10(2):171–178.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Galbraith JK (1955) The Great Crash 1929 (Mariner Books, Boston).Google Scholar
  • He S, Offerman T, van de Ven J (2017) The sources of the communication gap. Management Sci. 63(9):2832–2846.LinkGoogle Scholar
  • Hoffman E, McCabe K, Smith VL (1996) Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. Amer. Econom. Rev. 86(3):653–660.Google Scholar
  • Konow J (2000) Fair shares: Accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(4):1072–1091.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Merkel A, Vanberg C (2020) Legislative bargaining with costly communication. Public Choice 183(1-2):3–27.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Yang C-L, Zhang B, Charness G, Li C, Lien JW (2018) Endogenous rewards promote cooperation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115(40):9968–9973.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
INFORMS site uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some are essential to make our site work; Others help us improve the user experience. By using this site, you consent to the placement of these cookies. Please read our Privacy Statement to learn more.