States of Nature and Social Contracts

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Dooley
Keyword(s):  
Social Contracts ◽  
States Of Nature

CONVENTIONS AND SOCIAL CONTRACTS

1987 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. R. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Social Contracts

Interfirm Monitoring, Social Contracts, and Relationship Outcomes

2007 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 425-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan B. Heide ◽  
Kenneth H. Wathne ◽  
Aksel I. Rokkan
Keyword(s):  
Control Mechanism ◽  
Longitudinal Field ◽  
Interfirm Relationships ◽  
Supplier Relationships ◽  
Social Contracts ◽  
Informal Relationship ◽  
Behavior Monitoring ◽  
Versus Behavior ◽  
Relationship Outcomes ◽  
Output Monitoring

This article examines the effects of monitoring on interfirm relationships. Whereas some research suggests that monitoring can serve as a control mechanism that reduces exchange partner opportunism, there is also evidence showing that monitoring can actually promote such behavior. The authors propose that the actual effect of monitoring depends on (1) the form of monitoring used (output versus behavior) and (2) the context in which monitoring takes place. With regard to the form of monitoring, the results from a longitudinal field study of buyer–supplier relationships show that output monitoring decreases partner opportunism, as transaction cost and agency theory predict, whereas behavior monitoring, which is a more obtrusive form of control, increases partner opportunism. With regard to the context, the authors find that informal relationship elements in the form of microlevel social contracts serve as buffers that both enhance the effects of output monitoring and permit behavior monitoring to suppress opportunism in the first place.

scholarly journals Preparing for battle? Potential intergroup conflict promotes current intragroup affiliation

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew N. Radford
Keyword(s):  
Group Dynamics ◽  
Intergroup Conflict ◽  
Breeding Pair ◽  
Simple Consequence ◽  
Future Planning ◽  
Social Contracts ◽  
Evolution Of Sociality ◽  
Cooperatively Breeding ◽  
Intergroup Conflicts ◽  
Agonistic Support

Groups of human soldiers increase their affiliative behaviour when moving into combat zones. Despite numerous other species also competing as groups, little is known about how potential intergroup conflict might influence current intragroup affiliative behaviour in non-human animals. Here, I show that allopreening (when one individual preens another) increases in groups of cooperatively breeding green woodhoopoes ( Phoeniculus purpureus ) when they enter areas where conflicts with neighbours are more likely. Self-preening, which is an indicator of stress in other species, did not increase in conflict areas, suggesting that the change in affiliative behaviour is not the simple consequence of greater stress. Instead, because it is the dominant breeding pair that increase their preening of subordinate helpers, it is possible that current affiliative behaviour is being exchanged for agonistic support in any intergroup conflicts that might ensue. These results are important for our understanding of group dynamics, cooperation and the evolution of sociality, but also bring to mind the intriguing possibilities of social contracts and future planning in birds.

scholarly journals Changing social contracts: Beliefs and dissipative inclusion in Brazil

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee J. Alston ◽  
Marcus Andre Melo ◽  
Bernardo Mueller ◽  
Carlos Pereira
Keyword(s):  
Social Contracts

scholarly journals What Does Being a Settler Ally in Research Mean? A Graduate Students Experience Learning From and Working Within Indigenous Research Paradigms

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 160940691877048 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathy Snow
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Narrative Inquiry ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Doctoral Dissertation ◽  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Research Paradigms ◽  
Social Contracts ◽  
Indigenous Groups ◽  
Institutional Expectations ◽  
Conducting Research

Research with Indigenous peoples is fraught with complexity and misunderstandings. The complexity of negotiating historical and current issues as well as the misunderstandings about what the issues really mean for individuals and communities can cause non-Indigenous researchers to shy away from working with Indigenous groups. In conducting research for my doctoral dissertation, I was a novice researcher faced with negotiating two very different sets of social contracts: the Western Canadian university’s and my Indigenous participants’. Through narrative inquiry of my experience, this article explores issues of ethics, institutional expectations, and community relationships. Guided by Kirkness and Barnhardt’s “Four R’s” framework of respect, relevance, reciprocity, and responsibility, I aimed to meet the needs of both the groups, but it was not without challenges. What do you do when needs collide? This article shares my process of negotiating the research, the decisions made, and how I came to understand my role in the process as a Settler Ally. It closes with some implications for other researchers who are considering their own roles as Settler Allies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document