Many of the most important issues facing us today require a degree of collective action. Securing sufficient buy-in to make a difference, however, is often far from straightforward, especially if doing what is right incurs some form of personal cost.

Research from Cambridge Judge Business School explores how we can best encourage others to cooperate with us. Many such investigations utilize the public goods game in which volunteers are required to choose how many tokens they put into a public pot that everyone can benefit from.

The game exposes players to uncertainty, which is crucial to the social dilemma they face as they can’t be sure that others will reciprocate any generosity on their part. Some will inevitably cooperate while others will attempt to free-load.

Joined up

While we often assume that such deliberations happen in isolation, in reality, they often involve discussions with others. The researchers explore how this communication can help people to both understand the intentions of their peers while also try to persuade them to act in a cooperative manner.

The researchers split volunteers into groups of five, with each person asked to perform a simple task with a monetary reward associated with it. They were then given the choice to keep their reward for themselves or contribute it to the collective pool. Any money in the pot was then multiplied by 1.5, giving people the chance to earn more collectively than they would individually.

To add further spice to proceedings, participants were placed in a couple of conditions to see if that affected their willingness to cooperate. For instance, in the “virtue signaling” condition, they were told to state how many times they intended to share their earnings before they started to perform the tasks, with their choice then shared with the group.

A second condition, called the “money in your mouth” condition, informed each participant about the number of times their decision to share would be shared with the rest of the group. A third, called the “flying blind” condition, then provided no communication to the rest of the group.

After completing the task they were all placed into a chat room where they could converse with the other members of their group, with conversations often focusing on the decisions that were made and the information that was given to them. Each person then performed the task again, with each person paid what they were before plus what was earned by the group.

The right signals

The results show that people were most likely to cooperate when they were in the “virtue signaling” and “money in your mouth” conditions than when they were “flying blind”. This means that when we think our intentions will be available to the group, this significantly affects how we behave.

The group chat also seemed important, with any consensus reached on cooperation in the chat translating into cooperation in the task. Nonetheless, the researchers found that avoiding phrases that might indicate a degree of equivocation can help encourage cooperation. It doesn’t pay to be vague about our intentions or to offer conditional contributions as this simply fosters mistrust within the group.

Instead, the researchers believe that it is better to be explicit and specific with any pledges you make. The analysis also found that posing direct questions to the group about people’s intentions was also useful as this encourages everyone to make a commitment while also identifying anyone who is hedging their bets.

It can also be useful to communicate in a strong and assertive manner as this exhibits leadership and helps to strengthen the collective identity of the group. If people can also utilize warmth and humor this can also further bond the group together and encourage collective behaviors. This is ultimately the key, as if people feel a part of the group, they are more likely to cooperate.