Cooperation Beyond the Network

References

• Andersen S, Ertac S, Gneezy U, Hoffman M, List JA (2011) Stakes matter in ultimatum games. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(7):3427–3439.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Annual Report of Non-State Economy in China [Zhongguo minying jingji fazhan baogao] (2015) (Social Sciences Academic Press, Beijing).Google Scholar
• Aral S, Van Alstyne M (2011) The diversity-bandwidth tradeoff. Amer. J. Sociol. 117(1):90–171.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldassarri D (2015) Cooperative networks: Altruism, group solidarity, reciprocity, and sanctioning in Ugandan producer organization. Amer. J. Sociol. 121(2):355–395.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldassarri D, Abascal A (2020) Diversity and prosocial behavior. Sci. 369(6508):1183–1187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balliet D, Li NP, Macfarlan SJ, van Vugt M (2011) Sex differences in cooperation: A meta-analytic review of social dilemmas. Psych. Bull. 137(6):881–909.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banerjee A, Chandrasekhar AG, Duflo E, Jackson MO (2013) The diffusion of microfinance. Sci. 341(6144).Google Scholar
• Barker RG (1942) The social interrelations of strangers and acquaintances. Sociometry 5(2):169–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barker JR (1993) Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in self-managing teams. Admin. Sci. Quart. 38(3):408–437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barr A, Ensminger J, Johnson JC (2009) Social networks and trust in cross-cultural economic experiments. Cook KS, Levi M, Hardin R, eds. Whom Can We Trust? (Russell Sage Foundation, New York), 65–90.Google Scholar
• Batjargal B, Hitt MA, Tsui AS, Arregle JL, Webb JW, Miller TL (2013) Institutional polycentrism, entrepreneur’s social networks, and new venture growth. Acad. Management J. 56(4):1024–1049.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bernstein L (1992) Opting out of the legal system: Extralegal contractual relations in the diamond industry. J. Legal Stud. 21(1):115–157.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bian Y, Li L (2012) The Chinese General Social Survey (2003-8). Chinese Sociol. Rev. 45(1):70–97.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boone C, De Brabander B, van Witteloostuijn A (1999) The impact of personality on behavior in five prisoner’s dilemma games. J. Econom. Psych. 20(3):343–377.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boyd R, Richerson PJ (2009) Culture and the evolution of human cooperation. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. B 364(1533):3281–3288.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brandstätter H (2011) Personality aspects of entrepreneurship: A look at five meta-analyses. Personality Individual Differences 51(3):222–230.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brashears ME (2008) Gender and homophily: Differences in male and female association in Blau space. Soc. Sci. Res. 37(2):400–415.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2002) Bridge decay. Soc. Networks 24(4):333–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2005) Brokerage and Closure (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2010) Neighbor Networks (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2012) Network-related personality and the agency question: Multirole evidence from a virtual world. Amer. J. Sociol. 118(3):543–591.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2015) Reinforced structural holes. Soc. Networks 43:149–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2019) Network disadvantaged entrepreneurs: Density, hierarchy, and success in China and the West. Entrepreneurship Theory Practice 43(1):19–50.Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2021) Structural holes: Capstone, cautions, and enthusiasms. Small ML, Perry BL, Pescosolido B, Smith EB, eds. Personal Networks (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS, Batjargal B (2019) Comparative network research in China. Management Organ. Rev. 15(1):3–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS, Burzynska K (2017) Chinese entrepreneurs, social networks and guanxi. Management Organ. Rev. 13(2):221–260.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS, Merluzzi J (2016) Network oscillation. Acad. Management Discoveries 2(4):368–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS, Opper S (2017) Early network events in the later success of Chinese entrepreneurs. Management Organ. Rev. 13(3):497–537.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS, Bian Y, Opper S (2018) More or less guanxi: Trust is 60% network context, 10% individual difference. Soc. Networks 53:12–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS, Kilduff M, Tasselli S (2013) Social network analysis: Foundations and frontiers on network advantage. Annual Rev. Psych. 64:527–547.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS, Opper S, Zou N (2021) Social network and family business: Uncovering hybrid family firms. Soc. Networks 65:141–156.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Centola D (2018) How Behavior Spreads (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Centola D, Macy M (2007) Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. Amer. J. Sociol. 113(3):702–734.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Amer. J. Sociol. 94:S95–S120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coleman JS (1990) Foundations of Social Theory (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Cone J, Rand DG (2014) Time pressure increases cooperation in competitively framed social dilemmas. PLoS One 9(12):e115756.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook KS, Levi M, Hardin R (2009) Whom Can We Trust? (Russell Sage Foundation, New York).Google Scholar
• Cooper R, DeJong DV, Forsythe R, Ross TW (1996) Cooperation without reputation: Experimental evidence from prisoner’s dilemma games. Games Econom. Behav. 12(2):187–218.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cooper DJ, Kagel JH, Lo W, Gu QL (1999) Gaming against managers in incentive systems: Experimental results with Chinese students and Chinese managers. Amer. Econom. Rev. 89(4):781–804.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Costa-Gomes MA, Weizsäcker G (2008) Stated beliefs and play in no-form games. Rev. Econom. Stud. 75(3):729–762.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Croson R, Gneezy U (2009) Gender differences in preferences. J. Econom. Literature 47(2):448–474.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cubitt RP, Drouvelis M, Gächter M (2011) Framing and free riding: Emotional responses and punishment in social dilemma games. Experiment. Econom. 14(2):254–272.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dohmen T, Falk A, Huffman D, Sunde U, Schupp J, Wagner G (2011) Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 9(3):522–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Doreian P, Kapuscinski R, Krackhardt D, Szczypula J (1996) A brief history of balance through time. J. Math. Sociol. 21(1–2):113–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellickson R (1991) Order Without Law (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• EPS China Data. Accessed February 5, 2019, http://www.epschinadata.com/data-resource.html.Google Scholar
• Ertug G, Gargiulo M, Galunic C, Zou T (2018) Homophily and individual performance. Organ. Sci. 29(5):912–930.Link, Google Scholar
• Fan G, Wang X (2009) NERI Index of Marketization of China’s Provinces (National Economic Research Institute, Beijing).Google Scholar
• Fang R, Landis B, Zhang Z, Anderson MH, Shaw JD, Kilduff M (2015) Integrating personality and social networks: A meta-analysis of personality, network position, and work outcomes in organizations. Organ. Sci. 26(4):1243–1260.Link, Google Scholar
• Feld SL (1981) The focused organization of social ties. Amer. J. Sociol. 86(5):1015–1035.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feld SL, Knighton DT, McGail A (2021) Reflections on “the focused organization of social ties” and its implications for bonding and bridging. Small ML, Perry BL, Pescosolido B, Smith EB, eds. Personal Networks (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Festinger L, Schachter S, Back K (1950) Social Pressures in Informal Groups (Harper, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Friedkin NE (1983) Horizons of observability and limits of informal control in organizations. Soc. Forces 62(1):54–77.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gargiulo M, Benassi M (2000) Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organ. Sci. 11(2):183–196.Link, Google Scholar
• Goette L, Huffman D, Meier S (2012) The impact of social ties on group interactions: Evidence from minimal groups and randomly assigned real groups. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 4(1):101–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldberg A, Srivastava SB, Manian VG, Monroe W, Potts C (2016) Fitting in or standing out? The tradeoffs of structural and cultural embeddedness. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 81(6):1190–1222.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Granovetter M (1985) Economic action, social structure, and embeddedness. Amer. J. Sociol. 91(3):481–510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greif A (1989) Reputation and coalitions in medieval trade: Evidence on the Maghribi traders. J. Econom. Hist. 49(4):857–882.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holm HJ, Nee V, Opper S (2020) Strategic decisions: Behavioral differences between CEOs and others. Experiment. Econom. 23(1):154–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holm HJ, Opper S, Nee V (2013) Entrepreneurs under uncertainty: An economic experiment in China. Management Sci. 59(7):1671–1687.Link, Google Scholar
• Huang H, Tang J, Liu L, Luo J, Fu X (2015) Triadic closure pattern analysis and prediction in social networks. IEEE Trans. Knowledge Data Engrg. 27(12):3374–3389.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ingram P, Morris MW (2007) Do people mix at mixers? Structure, homophily, and the “life of the party.” Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(4):558–585.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Institute for Management Development (2005) IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook, 2005 (Institute for Management Development, Lausanne, Switzerland).Google Scholar
• Keister LA (2001) Exchange structures in transition: Lending and trade relations in Chinese business groups. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 66(3):336–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinbaum A (2018) Reorganization and tie decay choices. Management Sci. 64(5):2219–2237.Link, Google Scholar
• Kleinbaum A, Stuart TE, Tushman ML (2013) Discretion within constraint: Homophily and structure in a formal organization. Organ. Sci. 24(5):1316–1336.Link, Google Scholar
• Kilduff M, Lee HW (2020) The integration of people and networks. Annual Rev. Organ. Psych. Organ. Behav. 7:155–179.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lave LB (1962) An empirical approach to the prisoner’s dilemma game. Quart. J. Econom. 76(3):424–436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lazzarini SG, Miller AJ, Zenger TR (2008) Dealing with the paradox of embeddedness: The role of contracts and trust in facilitating movement out of committed relationships. Organ. Sci. 19(5):709–728.Link, Google Scholar
• Levin IP, Schneider SL, Gaeth GJ (1998) All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 76(2):149–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marsden PV (2011) Survey methods for network data. Scott JP, Carrington PJ, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 370–388.Google Scholar
• McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Rev. Sociol. 27:415–444.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mehra A, Kilduff M, Brass DJ (2001) The social networks of high and low self-monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(1):121–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mengel F (2017) Risk and temptation: A meta-study on prisoner’s dilemma games. Econom. J. (London) 128(616):3182–3209.Google Scholar
• Nee V, Opper S (2012) Capitalism from Below (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Obstfeld M (2005) Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 46(1):121–146.Google Scholar
• Perry BL, Pescosolido BA, Borgatti SP (2018) Egocentric Network Analysis (Cambridge University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perry-Smith JE, Mannucci PV (2017) From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Acad. Management Rev. 42(1):53–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peysakhovich A, Rand DG (2016) Habits of virtue: Creating norms of cooperation and defection in the laboratory. Management Sci. 62(3):631–647.Link, Google Scholar
• Quintane E, Carnabuci G (2016) How do brokers broker? Tertius gaudens, tertius iungens, and the temporality of structural holes. Organ. Sci. 27(6):1343–1360.Link, Google Scholar
• Raihani NJ, Bshary R (2015) Why humans might help strangers. Frontiers Behav. Neurosci. 9(39):1–11.Google Scholar
• Rand DG, Newman GE, Wurzbacher OM (2015) Social context and the dynamics of cooperative choice. J. Behav. Decision Making 28(2):159–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rand DG, Peysakhovitch A, Kraft-Todd GT, Newman GE, Wurzbacher O, Nowak MA, Green JD (2014) Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation. Nature Comm. 5:3677.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rapoport A, Chammah AM (1965) Sex differences in factors contributing to the level of cooperation in the prisoner’s dilemma game. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 2(6):831–838.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reagans R (2005) Preferences, identity, and competition: Predicting tie strength from demographic data. Management Sci. 51(9):1374–1383.Link, Google Scholar
• Reagans R (2011) Close encounters: Analyzing how social similarity and propinquity contribute to strong network connections. Organ. Sci. 22(4):835–849.Link, Google Scholar
• Reagans R, McEvily B (2003) Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(2):240–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Richerson PJ, Boyd R (2005) Not by Genes Alone (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Rivers I (2001) Retrospective reports of school bullying: Stability of recall and its implications for research. British J. Developmental Psych. 19(1):129–142.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ruan D (1998) The content of the General Social Survey discussion networks: An exploration of General Social Survey discussion name generator in a Chinese context. Soc. Networks 20(3):247–264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rubin DC, Kozin M (1984) Vivid memories. Cognition 16(1):81–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sally D (1995) Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992. Rationality Soc. 7(1):58–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sasovova Z, Mehra A, Borgati SP, Schippers MC (2010) Network churn: The effects of self-monitoring personality on brokerage dynamics. Admin. Sci. Quart. 55(4):639–670.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shum MS (1998) The role of temporal landmarks in autobiographical memory processes. Psych. Bull. 124(3):423–442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith EB, Menon T, Thompson L (2012) Status differences in the cognitive activation of social networks. Organ. Sci. 23(1):67–82.Link, Google Scholar
• Soda G, Tortoriello M, Iorio A (2018) Harvesting value from brokerage: Individual strategic orientation, structural holes and performance. Acad. Management J. 61(3):896–918.Crossref, Google Scholar
• State Statistical Bureau (2012) China Statistical Yearbook 2011 (Statistic Press, Beijing).Google Scholar
• Tasselli S, Kilduff M (2018) When brokerage between friendship cliques endangers trust: A personality-network fit perspective. Acad. Management J. 61(3):802–825.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thöni C, Tyran JR, Wengström E (2012) Microfoundations of social capital. J. Public Econom. 96(7–8):636–643.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tortoriello M, Krackhardt D (2010) Activating cross-boundary knowledge: The role of Simmelian ties in the generation of innovations. Acad. Management J. 53(1):167–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tortoriello M, McEvily B, Krackhardt D (2015) Being a catalyst of innovation: The role of knowledge diversity and network closure. Organ. Sci. 26(2):423–438.Link, Google Scholar
• Vissa B (2012) Agency in action: Entrepreneurs’ networking style and initiation of economic exchange. Organ. Sci. 23(2):492–510.Link, Google Scholar
• Weiner E (2016) The Geography of Genius (Simon and Schuster, New York).Google Scholar
• Weiss H, Adler S (1984) Personality and organizational behavior. Res. Organ. Behav. 6:1–50.Google Scholar
• Xiao Z, Tsui TS (2007) When brokers may not work: The cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(1):1–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yamagishi T, Mifune N, Li Y, Shinada M, Hashimoto H, Horita Y, Miura A, et al. (2013) Is behavioral pro-sociality game-specific? Pro-social preference and expectations of pro-sociality. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 120(2):260–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yenkey CB (2017) Fraud and market participation: Social relations as a moderator of organizational misconduct. Admin. Sci. Quart. 63(1):43–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zaheer A, Soda G (2009) Network evolution: The origins of structural holes. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(1):1–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhao H, Seibert SE (2006) The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. J. Appl. Psych. 91(2):259–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zucker LG (1986) Production of trust: Institutional sources of economic structure. Res. Organ. Behav. 8(1):53–111.Google Scholar