Group Decision and Individual Choice in Intergroup Competition for Public Goods

2015 ◽  
pp. 244-260
1989 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 422-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Bornstein ◽  
Amnon Rapoport ◽  
Lucia Kerpel ◽  
Tani Katz

Games ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kurt Ackermann ◽  
Ryan Murphy

There is a large body of evidence showing that a substantial proportion of people cooperate in public goods games, even if the situation is one-shot and completely anonymous. In the present study, we bring together two major endogenous factors that are known to affect cooperation levels, and in so doing replicate and extend previous empirical research on public goods problems in several important ways. We measure social preferences and concurrently elicit beliefs on the individual level using multiple methods, and at multiple times during the experiment. With this rich set of predictor variables at the individual level, we test how well individual contribution decisions can be accounted for in both a one-shot and a repeated interaction. We show that when heterogeneity in people’s preferences and beliefs is taken into consideration, more than 50% of the variance in individual choice behavior can be explained. Furthermore, we show that people do not only update their beliefs in a repeated public goods game, but also that their social preferences change, to some extent, in response to the choices of other decision makers.


1974 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 411-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phillip L. Hunsaker ◽  
David M. Hunsaker

An experimental simulation is described as a method for measuring and training decision-making by groups under complex conditions and intergroup competition. The method employs a simulation-game including selection of goals, relevance of strategy, risk-taking, consistency, competition, and other potential components. Similarities to a previously described simulation as well as the additional dimensions of the adapted simulation-game are discussed.


2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Van Vugt ◽  
David De Cremer ◽  
Dirk P. Janssen

Evolutionary scientists argue that human cooperation is the product of a long history of competition among rival groups. There are various reasons to believe that this logic applies particularly to men. In three experiments, using a step-level public-goods task, we found that men contributed more to their group if their group was competing with other groups than if there was no intergroup competition. Female cooperation was relatively unaffected by intergroup competition. These findings suggest that men respond more strongly than women to intergroup threats. We speculate about the evolutionary origins of this gender difference and note some implications.


Author(s):  
Carsten K. W. De Dreu ◽  
Tim R. W. de Wilde ◽  
Femke S. Ten Velden

AbstractGroup discussion often becomes one-sided and confirmatory, with poor decisions as the unfortunate outcome. Here we examine whether intergroup competition amplifies or mitigates effects of individual versus team reward on information sharing biases and group decision quality. Individuals (N = 309) in 103 interacting groups were given private information on four decision alternatives and discussed a joint decision. Private information was distributed such that groups faced a “hidden profile” in which pushing for initial preferences and commonly held information prohibits the group from finding the best alternative. Group members were rewarded for team or individual performance, and groups faced intergroup competition or not. Whereas intergroup competition did not influence common-information bias, we find that when intergroup competition is absent, groups under individual (versus team) reward have stronger preference-consistency bias and make poorer decisions. When intergroup competition is present, however, groups under individual reward perform as good as groups under team reward. Results resonate with the possibility that intergroup competition overshadows within-group rivalry, and can promote even-handed discussions within small groups of decision-makers.


1987 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amnon Rapoport ◽  
Gary Bornstein

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document