社会的交換の形態が社会的連帯に及ぼす影響の比較

抄録

Although social solidarity is an essential component that helps maintaining social order, what produces solidarity and how does it work have not been fully investigated. We conducted an experiment to examine whether experiencing different forms of social exchange produces different levels of solidarity. We compared four forms of social exchange: reciprocal exchange (exchange resources without negotiation), negotiated exchange (with negotiation), pure-generalized exchange (giver can choose who to give) and chain-generalized exchange (giver cannot choose who to give). Two dimensions classify these exchanges: the number of players (two vs. more than two), and involvement of negotiation. Reciprocal and negotiated exchanges occur within dyads, while pure- and chain-generalized exchanges involve three or more players. Only the negotiated exchange involves negotiation process; the other exchanges are purely unilateral giving. Participants played a one-shot social dilemma game (SDG) before and after social exchange session. The more the players cooperated in SDG, the stronger the social solidarity. Results show that the cooperation rate in SDG increased more in the reciprocal, pure- and chain-generalized exchange conditions than that in the negotiated exchange condition, suggesting that social solidarity is facilitated by experiencing social exchange which does not involve negotiation.