SOCIAL DILEMMA 1

Social Dilemma Research | Part 2 - Analysis of the Research

Mia Cruz

Los Angeles Pacific University

PSYC 350

Professor Richards

Feb 26, 2023

SOCIAL DILEMMA 2

A social dilemma describes a situation in which there is a conflict between an

individual’s self-interest and the longer-term collective interest (Van Lange et al., 2013). Social

dilemmas are more relevant than we may think. In California, we face a particular issue that

involves a basic necessity: water. For several years, the state has been in a severe drought. As the

years progress and the summers get hotter and arid, precipitation and water in river basins have

been far below average. “There are growing concerns about whether California can continue to

meet its tremendous demand for water for industrial use, growing food, sustaining ecosystems,

and expanding cities in the face of drought” (Mann & Gleick, 2015). State officials have been

intensely working to encourage Californians to help reverse this natural phenomenon, but

universal cooperation is difficult to achieve. Advertisements on street signs and local postings

are used to promote saving water and reduce the effects of drought. For example, citizens are

asked to spend less time in the shower, water grass less frequently and at specific times, and

reuse water when possible. From a Christian perspective, God teaches His people never to

express greed. The opportunity to be anonymous in the cooperation or competition of water

makes God’s gospel challenging for some to follow.

This situation is a prime example of the tragedy of the commons–or more specifically, the

harvesting dilemma proposed by Garrett Hardin (1968). The harvesting dilemma occurs when a

social dilemma leads people to overuse an existing public good. Of course, most Californians

desire to reside in a healthy state with natural beauty and would like to assist if the steps were

easy and personally rewarding. However, following the state’s recommendations does not

precisely fit into everyone’s self-interest. There is no direct benefit to the individual to stop

showering, letting their lawn die, which they worked hard to maintain or go out of their way to

contain and reuse water. Not to mention, one could say that doing so negatively impacts citizens
SOCIAL DILEMMA 3

and their interests. Other conservation efforts include replacing lawns with water-wise plants,

manually cleaning areas instead of using a hose, fixing all leaks in house plumbing, and several

more (“Conservation tips,” n.d.). Unfortunately, not everyone has the time, energy, money, or

overall interest to do so.

Dr. Sarah Becka et al. (2020) and Cuadrado et al. (2017) studied an experiment on a

study examining how individuals act when essential resources are scarce. Water was the limited

resource of the study, and they concluded that selfish strategies were expressed in situations

involving rewards/incentives. They discussed the motives for the participants’ actions with the

following themes: the conceptions of normality and conformity, location and city weather,

emotional responses, and understanding the drought from a social and political perspective.

Cuadrado et al. (2017) discovered significant differences between cooperative/social conditions

and competitive conditions. In prosocial conditions, their study participants acted to conserve

more water. Cooperation was seen when the scarcity of resources was more prevalent. On the

other hand, the more competitive situation induced fewer environmental-friendly acts as

self-concern benefits were more prevalent.

Moreover, Dr. Druen & Dr. Zawadzki (2021) investigated the social dilemma of climate

change. They found that students from their study expressed a greater pro-environmental

motivation, concern, and behavior after going through specific stressful dilemmas. Ultimately,

they encourage teachers and activists to create more educational programs about climate change

to save the environment.

The cognitive dissonance theory is a perfect example of this social dilemma. Stangor

(2017) defines this theory as “the discomfort that occurs when we behave in ways that we see as

inappropriate.” In other words, this can be when one engages in a situation they know they
SOCIAL DILEMMA 4

should not. As mentioned before, it is not usually one’s intention to worsen a natural disaster like

a drought, but one may act otherwise for their convenience. An example of this would be if the

state advised Californians not to water their lawn when the sun’s heat is at a peak, but an

individual did so anyways because of time constraints and dying grass. Moreover, after a long

day of work, one may enjoy a long hot shower knowing they are wasting water. They may feel

uncomfortable disobeying the state’s recommendations as their state becomes drier.

The attachment style theory may also be related to this dilemma. Stangor (2017) explains

that the different styles demonstrate the importance of both self-concern and other-concern in

successful social interaction. The four main attachment styles are secure, avoidant,

anxious/ambivalent, and fearful. In relevance to the drought, the state government is trying to

promote secure attachment as they want Californians to be concerned about themselves and the

state (others). They hope citizens act according to their conservation tips to find benefits within

themselves and the state’s overall natural health. Self-concern and other-concern are heavily

influenced in this dilemma as many citizens may prioritize themselves before the rest of the state.

The dual-concern model is when people relate to social dilemmas in contrasting ways,

depending on the individual's personal perspective and experiences. Using the dual-concern

theory, those focused primarily on the others’ experiences of not having water will yield, or give

into cooperation, and likely make suitable conservation choices. On the other hand, those who

perform self-concern with no other-concern, like some Californians during this period,

participate in contending or trying to get the other party to understand the other concern.

Regardless, the conflict can cause stressful solutions such as forced cooperation and

motivation–i.e., shutting off water to houses or raising water prices.

SOCIAL DILEMMA 5

There are endless possibilities of ways to resolve a harvesting social dilemma. Firstly,

communication holds a crucial role in solving. The numerous benefits of communication

improve the likelihood of cooperation. Individuals can express their thoughts and ideas on how

they plan to contribute to the issue as a whole, motivating others to participate, developing

norms, and preventing free-riders. An approach that can directly be used to work out the

discrepancy would be privatization. The public good, in this case, it is access to water, can be

divided rather than allowing the group to control the whole source. The freedom for anonymous

decision-making creates selfish and competitive actions that the Lord warned His people of.

Deuteronomy 11:17 reminds us that we must not take God’s blessings–particularly natural

resources like water–for granted and kindly share with all, including those we may not agree

with or are struggling with.

SOCIAL DILEMMA 6

References

Becka, S. & Sparks, P. (2020). “It never rains in California”: Constructions of drought as a

natural and social phenomenon. Weather and Climate Extremes, 29(2),

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2020.100257

“Conservation Tips”. (n.d.). https://water.ca.gov/water-basics/conservation-tips

Cuadrado, E., Tabernero, C., Garcia, R., et al. (2017). The role of prosocialness and trust in the

consumption of water as a limited resource. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 694,

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00694

Druen, P. & Zawadzki, S. (2021). Escaping the climate trap: participation in a climate-specific

social dilemma simulation boosts climate-protective motivation and actions.

Sustainability, 13(16), 9438, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169438

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.

Mann, M. & Gleick, P. (2015). Climate change and California drought in the 21st century.

PNAS, 112(13), 3858-3859, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503667112

Stangor, C. (2017). Principles of Social Psychology. FlatWorld

Van Lange, P., Joireman, J., Parks, C. et al. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A

review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 125-141,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.003