Sharing Honor and Dishonor? The Effect of Task-based Shared Experience on Cooperation

Li Li; He Jiqiang; Luo Xizi; Xing Shanshan; Zhou Huirong; Zhang Qiyue; Hu Jiali

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260112

PDF(1125 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2026, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (1) : 121-133. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260112

Social，Personality & Organizational Psychology

Sharing Honor and Dishonor? The Effect of Task-based Shared Experience on Cooperation

Li Li¹, He Jiqiang¹, Luo Xizi², Xing Shanshan³, Zhou Huirong⁴, Zhang Qiyue¹, Hu Jiali¹

Author information +

History +

Abstract

As one of the key prosocial behaviors, cooperative behavior plays a vital role in social development and group cohesion. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the factors that influence it. Previous studies have shown that shared experiences can effectively promote cooperation. However, most of this research has concentrated on physiological stimulation, emotional stimulation, and interpersonal synchronization. Despite being one of the most common experiences in life, task-based shared experiences have received relatively little attention from researchers. Furthermore, few scholars have explored how the success or failure of these shared experiences impacts cooperative behavior. To address these gaps, this study employs three experiments to examine the relationship between task-based shared experiences and cooperative behavior, the underlying mechanisms involved, and the role of success or failure feedback.
Study 1 investigates the relationship between task-based shared experience and cooperative behavior. The experiment employed a one-way, two-level between-subjects design, with a total of 71 participants randomly assigned to either the task-based common experience group or the task-based different experience group. Participants in the common experience group were required to complete the same task (a memory task), while those in the different experience group were assigned different tasks, with half completing the memory task and the other half completing a summary task. The public goods dilemma was used to measure their cooperative behavior. To rule out alternative explanations, Studies 2a and 2b made minor adjustments to the common/different experiences intervention based on Study 1 and further explored the roles of trust and interpersonal distance in how task-based shared experiences influence cooperative behavior. Study 2a recruited 72 participants, while Study 2b recruited 73. The experimental design and procedures for both studies were similar to those of Study 1, with the following distinctions: Study 2a measured participants' trust using a trust paradigm, while Study 2b assessed interpersonal distance through a questionnaire. Both studies used the Prisoner's Dilemma to evaluate cooperative behavior. Building on Study 2, Study 3 further examines the impact of feedback regarding the success or failure of task-based shared experiences on cooperative behavior. A total of 146 participants were recruited for Study 3, which adopted a 2 (common/different experiences) × 2 (success feedback/failure feedback) experimental design. The interventions for common and different experiences were consistent with those in Study 2; however, participants in the success feedback group were informed that their task was successful, while those in the failure feedback group were told that their task had failed.
The results of Study 1 support the hypothesis that task-based shared experiences promote cooperative behavior more effectively than task-based different experiences. Findings from Study 2 indicate that trust and interpersonal distance mediate the influence of task-based shared experiences on cooperative behavior, which not only supports the hypothesis but also aligns with the predictions of self-categorization theory. Study 3 reveals that successful task-based shared experiences encourage cooperative behavior more than successful task-based different experiences, while the cooperative behavior of the failed task-based shared experiences group is lower than that of the failed task-based different experiences group. Notably, interpersonal distance plays a significant mediating role only under the condition of success feedback, which partially supports the hypothesis.
This study indicates that task-based shared experiences influence the occurrence of cooperative behavior, with trust and interpersonal distance serving as mediating factors in this process. Furthermore, the outcome of these task-based shared experiences-be it a success or failure-moderates their impact on cooperative behavior. Notably, trust loses its mediating role when participants receive feedback regarding the success or failure of their task-based shared experiences. This finding suggests opportunities for future research to investigate the underlying reasons and boundary conditions associated with these dynamics.

Key words

shared experiences / cooperative behavior / trust / interpersonal distance / experience success or failure

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Li Li, He Jiqiang, Luo Xizi, Xing Shanshan, Zhou Huirong, Zhang Qiyue, Hu Jiali. Sharing Honor and Dishonor? The Effect of Task-based Shared Experience on Cooperation[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2026, 49(1): 121-133 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260112

References

[1] 窦凯, 聂衍刚, 王玉洁, 刘耀中. (2018). 信任还是设防?互动博弈中社会善念对合作行为的促进效应. 心理科学, 41(2), 390-396.
[2] 丁玉婷, 张畅, 李冉冉, 丁文宇, 朱静, 刘伟, 陈宁. (2023). 积极共同经历促进师生关系的机制 : 情感联结的中介作用. 心理学报, 55(5), 726-739.
[3] 梁芳美, 肖子伦, 包燕, 赵玉芳. (2020). 共同内群体认同对心理融合的促进效应及其机制. 心理科学, 43(5), 1147-1153.
[4] 李晶, 朱莉琪. (2014). 高功能孤独症儿童的合作行为. 心理学报, 46(9), 1301-1316.
[5] 吕飒飒, 孙欣, 沈林林, 武雨晴, 赵纾, 王霏, 汪祚军. (2021). 群体共同经历影响不公平感知. 心理学报, 53(7), 773-787.
[6] 马君, 张昊民, 杨涛. (2015). 成就目标导向、团队绩效控制对员工创造力的跨层次影响. 心理学报, 47(1), 79-92.
[7] 马昕玥, 崔丽莹. (2022). 人际同步对合作行为的促进机制及解释模型. 心理科学进展, 30(6), 1317-1326.
[8] 苗晓燕, 孙欣, 匡仪, 汪祚军. (2021). 共患难, 更同盟 : 共同经历相同负性情绪事件促进合作行为. 心理学报, 53(1), 81-94.
[9] 肖凤秋, 郑志伟, 陈英和. (2014). 亲社会行为产生机制的理论演进. 心理科学, 37(5), 1263-1270.
[10] 谢文澜, 汪祚军, 王霏, 张林. (2013). 合作行为的产生机制及影响因素——基于进化心理学视角下的探讨. 心理科学进展, 21(11), 2057-2063.
[11] 张建新, Bond, M. H. (1993). 指向具体人物对象的人际信任 : 跨文化比较及其认知模型. 心理学报, 25(2), 54-62.
[12] 祝婷, 李凌智, 温芳芳, 佐斌, 鞠一琰, 龙佳慧. (2024). 共同内群体认同的心理效应及其影响因素. 心理科学, 47(2), 440-449.
[13] Aron A., Aron E. N., & Smollan D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596-612.
[14] Bastian B., Jetten J., & Ferris L. J. (2021). "Pain as social glue: Shared pain increases cooperation": Corrigendum. Psychological Science, 32(4), 631.
[15] Bechler C., Green L., & Myerson J. (2015). Proportion offered in the Dictator and Ultimatum Games decreases with amount and social distance. Behavioural Processes, 115, 149-155.
[16] Behrens F., Snijdewint J. A., Moulder R. G., Prochazkova E., Sjak-Shie E. E., Boker S. M., & Kret M. E. (2020). Physiological synchrony is associated with cooperative success in real-life interactions. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 19609.
[17] Belmi, P, & Pfeffer, J. (2016). Power and death: Mortality salience increases power seeking while feeling powerful reduces death anxiety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(5), 702-720.
[18] Berg,J., Dickhaut, J, & McCabe, K. (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and socialhistory. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122-142.
[19] Boothby E. J., Clark M. S., & Bargh J. A. (2014). Shared experiences are amplified. Psychological Science, 25(12), 2209-2216.
[20] Boothby E. J., Smith L. K., Clark M. S., & Bargh J. A. (2016). Psychological distance moderates the amplification of shared experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(10), 1431-1444.
[21] Cirelli, L. K. (2018). How interpersonal synchrony facilitates early prosocial behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 35-39.
[22] Cremer, D. D., & Vugt, M. V. (1999). Social identification effects in social dilemmas: A transformation of motives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(7), 871-893.
[23] Cruwys T., Greenaway K. H., Ferris L. J., Rathbone J. A., & Grace L. (2020). When trust goes wrong: A social identity model of risk taking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(1), 57-83.
[24] Diel K., Hofmann W., Grelle S., Boecker L., & Friese M. (2024). Prepare to compare: Effects of an intervention involving upward and downward social comparisons on goal pursuit in daily life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication.
[25] Dorfman A., Eyal T., & Bereby-Meyer Y. (2014). Proud to cooperate: The consideration of pride promotes cooperation in a social dilemma. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 105-109.
[26] Eskreis-Winkler, L., & Fishbach, A. (2019). Not learning from failure—The greatest failure of all. Psychological science, 30(12), 1733-1744.
[27] Ferris G. R., Arthur M. M., Berkson H. M., Kaplan D. M., Harrell-Cook G., & Frink D. D. (1998). Toward a social context theory of the human resource management-organization effectiveness relationship. Human Resource Management Review, 8(3), 235-264.
[28] Fiedler S., Glöckner A., Nicklisch A., & Dickert S. (2013). Social value orientation and information search in social dilemmas: An eye-tracking analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 272-284.
[29] Gao C., Wang D., Miao X. Y., Wang Z. J., & Qin Chan K. (2021). Close-knit ties through thick and thin: Sharing social exclusion and acceptance enhances social bond. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(1), 197-211.
[30] Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I, Scheinkman, J. A, & Soutter, C. L. (2000). Measuring trust. The Ouarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 811-846.
[31] Haj-Mohamadi P., Fles E. H., & Shteynberg G. (2018). When can shared attention increase affiliation? On the bonding effects of co-experienced belief affirmation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 75, 103-106.
[32] Jaubert T., Chekroun P., Légal J. B., & Gosling P. (2022). You are not alone! Sharing ostracism fosters group identification but does not improve well-being. Social Psychology, 53(3), 163-177.
[33] Klar, S. (2018). When common identities decrease trust: An experimental study of partisan women. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 610-622.
[34] Lehmann, L., & Keller, L. (2006). The evolution of cooperation and altruism-a general framework and a classification of models. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 19, 1365-1376.
[35] Levine E. E., Barasch A., Rand D., Berman J. Z., & Small D. A. (2018). Signaling emotion and reason in cooperation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(5), 702-719.
[36] Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2008). The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science, 322(5905), 1201-1205.
[37] Liberman, Z., & Shaw, A. (2019). Children use similarity, propinquity, and loyalty to predict which people are friends. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 184, 1-17.
[38] Lin J., Li W., Guo Z., & Kou Y. (2024). When and why does economic inequality predict prosocial behaviour? Examining the role of interpersonal trust among different targets. European Journal of Social Psychology, 54(1), 136-153.
[39] Mitchell J., Occhipinti S., & Oaten M. (2023). The affiliative power of others' pain online. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 53(4), 308-328.
[40] Noordzij G., Giel L., & van Mierlo H. (2021). A meta-analysis of induced achievement goals: The moderating effects of goal standard and goal framing. Social Psychology of Education, 24, 195-245.
[41] Pruitt, D. G., & Kimmel, M. J. (1977). Twenty years of experimental gaming: Critique, synthesis, and suggestions for the future. Annual Review of Psychology, 28(1), 363-392.
[42] Roberts A. R., Levine E. E., & Sezer O. (2021). Hidingsuccess. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(5), 1261-1286.
[43] Sabato, H., & Kogut, T. (2021). Sharing and belonging: Children' s social status and their sharing behavior with in-group and out-group members. Developmental Psychology, 57(12), 2082.
[44] Schütt, C. A. (2023). The effect of perceived similarity and social proximity on the formation of prosocial preferences. Journal of Economic Psychology, 99, 1-8.
[45] Shalabi, F. S. (2019). The relationship between organisational trust and organisational identification and its effect on organisational loyalty. International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 18(1), 1-30.
[46] Shteynberg, G., & Apfelbaum, E. P. (2013). The power of shared experience: Simultaneous observation with similar others facilitates social learning. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(6), 738-744.
[47] Srna S., Barasch A., & Small D. A. (2022). On the value of modesty: How signals of status undermine cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(4), 676-692.
[48] Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65-93.
[49] Turner J. C., Hogg M. A., Oakes P. J., Reicher S. D., & Wetherell M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26(4), 347-348.
[50] Wang Y., Pegna A. J., & Framorando D. (2023). The effect of social comparison on effort: When similar and slightly better peers increase effort-related cardiovascular responses. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 192, 72-79.
[51] Woolley, K., & Fishbach, A. (2017). A recipe for friendship: Similar food consumption promotes trust and cooperation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(1), 1-10.
[52] Woolley, K., & Fishbach, A. (2019). Shared plates, shared minds: Consuming from a shared plate promotes cooperation. Psychological Science, 30(4), 541-552.
[53] Yan V., Goldszmidt R., & Andrade E. B. (2022). Social class shapes donation allocation preferences. Journal of Consumer Research, 48(5), 775-795.
[54] Zhang, S. (2017). Social justice, institutional trust and public cooperation intention. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(6), 794-813.