Divided Loyalties or Conditional Cooperation? An Experimental Study of Contributions to Multiple Public Goods

M. McCarter, A. Samek, Roman M. Sheremeta
{"title":"Divided Loyalties or Conditional Cooperation? An Experimental Study of Contributions to Multiple Public Goods","authors":"M. McCarter, A. Samek, Roman M. Sheremeta","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2221696","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is common in organizational life to be simultaneously involved in multiple collective actions. These collective actions may be modeled using public good dilemmas. The developing social dilemma literature has two perspectives – the “divided loyalties” and “conditional cooperation” perspectives – that give opposite predictions about how individuals will behave when they simultaneously play two identical public good games. The current paper creates consensus between these social dilemma perspectives by examining cooperative behavior of participants interacting in two public good games with either different or the same group members. In each round, individuals have a common budget constraint across the two games. In support of the conditional cooperator’s perspective of social dilemmas, we find that playing two games with different, rather than same, group members increases overall contributions. Over the course of the experiment, participants playing two games with different group members shift their contributions significantly more often toward more cooperative public good games than participants playing with the same group members.","PeriodicalId":134671,"journal":{"name":"Artefactual Field Experiments","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Artefactual Field Experiments","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2221696","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

Abstract

It is common in organizational life to be simultaneously involved in multiple collective actions. These collective actions may be modeled using public good dilemmas. The developing social dilemma literature has two perspectives – the “divided loyalties” and “conditional cooperation” perspectives – that give opposite predictions about how individuals will behave when they simultaneously play two identical public good games. The current paper creates consensus between these social dilemma perspectives by examining cooperative behavior of participants interacting in two public good games with either different or the same group members. In each round, individuals have a common budget constraint across the two games. In support of the conditional cooperator’s perspective of social dilemmas, we find that playing two games with different, rather than same, group members increases overall contributions. Over the course of the experiment, participants playing two games with different group members shift their contributions significantly more often toward more cooperative public good games than participants playing with the same group members.
分裂忠诚还是有条件合作?多元公共物品贡献的实验研究
在组织生活中,同时参与多个集体行动是很常见的。这些集体行动可以用公共利益困境来模拟。发展中的社会困境文献有两种观点——“分裂的忠诚”和“有条件的合作”——这两种观点对个人在同时玩两种相同的公共利益游戏时的行为给出了相反的预测。本文通过研究参与者在两个公共利益博弈中与不同或相同的群体成员互动的合作行为,在这些社会困境观点之间达成共识。在每一轮中,个体在两个游戏中都有一个共同的预算约束。为了支持条件合作者对社会困境的看法,我们发现玩两个不同而不是相同的小组成员的游戏会增加总体贡献。在整个实验过程中,与同一组成员相比,与不同组成员一起玩两种游戏的参与者更经常地将他们的贡献转向更具合作性的公益游戏。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信