Social Contracts and Moral Communities

1995 ◽  
pp. 223-223
Author(s):  
William C. Frederick
2003 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 523-554
Author(s):  
Mark D. Regnerus

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

2007 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 425-433 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan B. Heide ◽  
Kenneth H. Wathne ◽  
Aksel I. Rokkan

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.


2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew N. Radford

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.


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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document