Social dilemmas are instances where collective interests are at odds with private interests. These circumstances happen when faced with prioritizing either short-term self-centered interests or the long-term interests of a group, organization, or society. Disagreement and conflict arise when reasons about the group are overwhelmed and/or weakened by individual motives. When this happens, others need to intervene to reinstate the stability and/or equilibrium of the group.
Social dilemmas describe circumstances where the rational behavior of an individual, delineated in simple economic terms, leads to suboptimal consequences from the shared and cooperative standpoint (Kollock, 1998). Consider these examples… As individuals, we are each better off when we make use of community services such as schools, hospitals, highway systems, etc. without adding to their upkeep. However, if everyone acted according to their thin self-interest, these resources would not be provided and everyone would be worse off (Van Vugt, 2009).
Types of social dilemmas may include: the Prisoner’s Dilemma, the public good Dilemma (see Public Goods Game), and the Tragedy of the Commons (see Commons dilemma). There are also fairness dilemmas. Theories include: the Game Theory, Evolutionary Theories, and Psychological Theories. Resolving social dilemmas… Learning and examining the conditions under which people collaborate might lead to recommendations to solve social dilemmas in society. Generally speaking, there are three wide-ranging classes of resolutions: motivational, strategic, and structural. Each of these may vary depending on whether they see people involved as motivated solely by self-interest and if they change the laws of the social dilemma “game.”
Kollock, P. (1998). Social dilemmas: Anatomy of cooperation. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 183–214. Retrieved from EbscoHost.
Van Vugt, M. (2009). Averting the tragedy of the commons: Using social psychological science to protect the environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 169–173. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01630.x