Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Who Cooperates? Reciprocity and the Causal Effect of Expected Cooperation in Representative Samples

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2017

Michael M. Bechtel
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Washington University in St.Louis, St.Louis, MO, USA, e-mail: mbechtel@wustl.edu Swiss Institute for International Economics and Applied Economic Research, St.Gallen, Switzerland
Kenneth F. Scheve
Affiliation:
† Department of Political Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, e-mail: scheve@stanford.edu
Corresponding

Abstract

When do societies succeed in providing public goods? Previous research suggests that public goods contributions correlate with expectations about cooperation by others among students and other demographic subgroups. However, we lack knowledge about whether the effect of expected cooperation is causal and a general feature of populations. We fielded representative surveys (N = 8,500) in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States that included a public goods game and a novel between-subjects experiment. The experiment varied expectations about cooperation by others. We find that higher expected cooperation by others causes a significant increase in individual contributions. When classifying contribution schedules, we find that almost 50% of the population employs a conditionally cooperative strategy. These individuals are on average richer, younger, and more educated. Our results help explain the varying success of societal groups in overcoming cooperation problems and assist policymakers in the design of institutions meant to solve social dilemmas.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Anderson, Jon, Burks, Stephen V., Carpenter, Jeffrey, Götte, Lorenz, Maurer, Karsten, Nosenzo, Daniele, Potter, Ruth, Rocha, Kim and Rustichini, Aldo. 2013. “Self-Selection and Variations in the Laboratory Measurement of Other-Regarding Preferences Across Subject Pools: Evidence from One College Student and Two Adult Samples.” Experimental Economics 16 (2): 170–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen and Schaffner, Brian F.. 2014. “Does Survey Mode Still Matter? Findings From a 2010 Multi-Mode Comparison.” Political Analysis 22 (3): 285303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen and Rivers, Douglas. 2013. “Cooperative Survey Research.” Annual Review of Political Science 16 (1): 123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Basic Books.Google ScholarPubMed
Baldassari, Delia and Grossman, Guy. 2013. “The Effect of Group Attachment and Social Position on Prosocial Behavior. Evidence from Lab-in-the-Field Experiments.” PLoS One 8: 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, Scott. 2003. Environment and Statecraft: The Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, Michael M., Genovese, Federica and Scheve, Kenneth F.. 2017. “Interests, Norms and Support for the Provision of Global Public Goods: The Case of Cliamte Co-operation.” British Journal of Political Science (forthcoming). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000205 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechtel, Michael M. and Scheve, Kenneth F.. 2013. “Mass Support for Climate Cooperation Depends on Institutional Design.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110 (34): 1376313768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bechtel, Michael M. and Scheve, Kenneth F.. 2017. “Replication Data for: ‘Who Cooperates? Reciprocity and the Causal Effect of Expected Cooperation in Representative Samples’.” Harvard Dataverse, V3.Google Scholar
Bellemare, Charles and Kröger, Sabine. 2007. “On Representative Social Capital.” European Economic Review 51 (1): 183202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belot, Michele, Duch, Raymond and Miller, Luis. 2015. “A Comprehensive Comparison of Students and Non-students in Classic Experimental Games.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 113: 2633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., Huber, Gregory A. and Lenz, Gabriel S.. 2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk.” Political Analysis 20: 351368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolsen, Toby, Ferraro, Pail J. and Miranda, Joan Jose. 2014. “Are Voters More Likely to Contribute to Other Public Goods? Evidence from a Large-Scale Randomized Policy Experiment.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (1): 1730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, Colin F. and Hogarth, Robin M.. 1999. “The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19 (1): 742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, Frerik, Johansson-Stenmann, Olof and Nam, Pham Khanh. 2014. “Social Preferences are Stable Over Long Periods of Time.” Journal of Public Economics 117: 104114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, Gary and Haruvy, Ernan. 2002. “Altruism, Equity, and Reciprocity in a Gift-exchange Experiment: An Encompassing Approach.” Games and Economic Behavior 40 (2): 203231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croson, Rachel and Gneezy, Uri. 2009. “Gender Differences in Preferences.” Journal of Economic Literature 47 (2): 448474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickson, Eric S. 2011. “Economics versus Psychology Experiments: Stylization, Incentives, and Deception.” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. Donald Green and James N. Druckman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 5870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. and Kam, Cindy D.. 2011. Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the “Narrow Data Base”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 4157.Google Scholar
Engelmann, Dirk and Strobel, Martin. 2010. “Inequality Aversion and Reciprocity in Moonlighting Games.” Games 1 (4): 459477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, Ernst and Schmidt, Klaus M.. 2006. “The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism - Experimental Evidence and New Theories.” In Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, Volume I. New York: Elsevier B.V., pp. 615–91.Google Scholar
Fehr, Ernst and Fischbacher, Urs. 2002. “Why Social Preferences Matter - The Impact of Non-Selfish Motives on Competition, Cooperation and Incentives.” Economic Journal 112 (478): C1C33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, Ernst, Fischbacher, Urs, von Rosenbladt, Bernhard, Schupp, Jürgen and Wagner, Gert G.. 2002. “A Nation-Wide Laboratory: Examining Trust and Trustworthiness by Integrating Behavioral Experiments into Representative Surveys.” Schmollers Jahrbuch 122 (4): 519542.Google Scholar
Fischbacher, Urs and Gächter, Simon. 2010. “Social Preferences, Beliefs, and the Dynamics of Free Riding in Public Goods Experiments.” American Economic Review 100 (1): 541556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, Urs, Gächter, Simon and Fehr, Ernst. 2001. “Are People Conditionally Cooperative? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment.” Economics Letters 71 (3): 397404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torgler, Frey, Bruno S. and Benno. 2007. “Tax Morale and Conditional Cooperation.” Journal of Comparative Economics 35 (1): 136159.Google Scholar
Gächter, Simon, Herrmann, Benedikt and Thöni, Christian. 2004. “Trust, Voluntary Cooperation, and Socio-economic Background: Survey and Experimental Evidence.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 55 (4): 505531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillis, Mark and Hettler, Paul. 2007. “Hypothetical and Real Incentives in the Ultimatum Game and Andreoni’s Public Goods Game: An Experimental Study.” Eastern Economic Journal 33 (4): 491510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habyarimana, James, Humphreys, Macartan, Posner, Daniel N. and Weinstein, Jeremy M.. 2007. “Why Does Ethnic Diversity Undermine Public Goods Provision.” American Political Science Review 101 (4): 709725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habyarimana, James, Humphreys, Macartan, Posner, Daniel N. and Weinstein, Jeremy M.. 2009. Coethnicity: Diversity and the Dilemmas of Collective Action. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Henrich, Joseph, Boyd, Robert, Bowles, Samuel, Camerer, Colin, Fehr, Ernst, Gintis, Herbert and McElreath, Richard. 2001. “In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies.” American Economic Review 91 (2): 7378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollyer, James R., Rosendorff, B. Peter and Vreeland, James Raymond. 2015. “Transparency, Protest, and Autocratic Instability.” American Political Science Review 109 (4): 764784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, Håkan J. and Danielson, Anders. 2005. “Tropic Trust Versus Nordic Trust: Experimental Evidence From Tanzania And Sweden.” Economic Journal 115 (503): 505532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huff, Connor and Tingley, Dustin. 2015. “Who Are These People?” Evaluating the Demographic Characteristics and Political Preferences of MTurk Survey Respondents.” Research and Politics (1-12).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hume, David. 2003 [1740]. A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kaul, Inge, Grunberg, Isabelle and Stern, Marc A.. 1999. “Defining Global Public Goods.” In Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century, eds. Kaul, Inge, Grunberg, Isabelle and Stern, Marc A.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. and Ostrom, Elinor. 1995. Local Commons and Global Interdependence. Heterogeneity and Cooperation in Two Domains. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Kern, Holger L., Stuart, Elizabeth A., Hill, Jennifer and Green, Donald P.. 2016. “Assessing Methods for Generalizing Experimental Impact Estimates to Target Populations.” Journal of Research on Educational Effectivenes, forthcoming.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analysis: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 347361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurzban, Robert and Houser, Daniel. 2005. “Experiments Investigating Cooperative Types in Humans: A Complement to Evolutionary Theory and Simulations.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102 (5): 18031807.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morton, Rebecca B. and Williams, Kenneth C.. 2010. Experimental Political Science and the Study of Causality: From Nature to the Lab. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. 2000. “Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 14: 137158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauhut, Heiko and Winter, Fabian. 2010. “A Sociological Perspective on Measuring Social Norms by Means of Strategy Method Experiments.” Social Science Research 31 (6): 11811194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivers, Douglas. 2011. “Sample Matching: Representative Sampling from Internet Panels.” YouGov White Paper.Google Scholar
Roux, Catherine and Thöni, Christian. 2015. “Do Control Questions Influence Behavior in Experiments?Experimental Economics 18: 185194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, Todd and Hartley, Keith. 1999. The Political Economy of NATO: Past, Present and into the 21st Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, Reinhard. 1967. “Die Strategiemethode zur Erforschung des eingeschränkt rationalen Verhaltens im Rahmen eines Oligopolexperiments.” In Beiträge zur experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung, ed. Sauermann, H.. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), pp. 136168.Google Scholar
Smith, Richard, Beaglehole, Robert, Woodward, David and Drager, Nick, eds,. 2003. Global Public Goods for Health: A Health Economic and Public Health Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, Joseph E. 1999. “Knowledge as a Global Public Good.” In Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century, eds. Kaul, Inge, Grunberg, Isabelle and Stern, Marc. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 308325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoop, Jan, Noussair, Charles N. and van Soest, Daan. 2012. “From the Lab to the Field: Cooperation among Fishermen.” Journal of Political Economy 102 (6): 10271056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thöni, Christian, Tyran, Jean-Robert and Wengström, Erik. 2012. “Microfoundations of Social Capital.” Journal of Public Economics 96 (7-8): 635643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tingley, Dustin and Tomz, Michael. 2014. “Conditional Cooperation and Climate Change.” Comparative Political Studies 47 (3): 344368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, Lily L. 2007. “Solidary Groups, Informal Accountability, and Local Public Goods Provision in Rural China.” American Political Science Review 101 (2): 355372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ward, Hugh. 1990. “Three Men in a Boat, Two Must Row: An Analysis of a Three-Person Chicken Pregame.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 34 (3): 371400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, Stephen G., Duan, Naihua, Pequegnat, Willo, Gaist, Paul, Jarlais, Don C. Des, Holtgrave, David, Szapocznik, José, Fishbein, Martin, Rapkin, Bruce, Clatts, Michael and Mullen, Patricia Dolan. 2008. “Alternatives to the Randomized Controlled Trial.” American Journal of Public Health 98 (8): 13591366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bechtel and Scheve supplementary material 1

Appendix

PDF 3 MB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 20
Total number of PDF views: 278 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th November 2017 - 21st January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-gtgjg Total loading time: 0.275 Render date: 2021-01-21T06:32:52.248Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Who Cooperates? Reciprocity and the Causal Effect of Expected Cooperation in Representative Samples
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Who Cooperates? Reciprocity and the Causal Effect of Expected Cooperation in Representative Samples
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Who Cooperates? Reciprocity and the Causal Effect of Expected Cooperation in Representative Samples
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *