Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-6tpvb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T22:09:32.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leadership effectiveness and institutional frames

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Gerrit Frackenpohl ,
Adrian Hillenbrand  and
Sebastian Kube
Gerrit Frackenpohl
Affiliation:
University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
Adrian Hillenbrand
Affiliation:
University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Bonn, Germany
Sebastian Kube*
Affiliation:
University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Leadership mechanisms provide a potential means to mitigate social dilemmas, but empirical evidence on the success of such mechanisms is mixed. In this paper, we explore the institutional frame as a relevant factor for the effectiveness of leadership. We compare subjects’ behavior in public-goods experiments that are either framed positively (give-some game) or negatively (take-some game). We observe that leader and follower decisions are sensitive to the institutional frame. Leaders contribute less in the take-some game, and the correlation between leaders’ and followers’ contribution is weaker in the take-some game. Additionally, using a strategy method to elicit followers’ reactions at the individual level, we find evidence for the malleability of followers’ revealed cooperation types. Taken together, the leadership institution is found to be less efficient in the take- than in the give-frame, both in games that are played only once and repeatedly.

Keywords

LeadershipFramingSocial dilemmaPublic goodsLaboratory experiment

JEL classification

D64: Altruism • Philanthropy • Intergenerational Transfers H41: Public Goods D02: Institutions: Design, Formation, Operations, and Impact C92: Laboratory, Group Behavior
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 842 - 863
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-015-9470-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Akerlof, GA, & Kranton, RE (2000). Economics and identity. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 715–753. 10.1162/003355300554881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J (1995). Warm-glow versus cold prickle: The effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110, 1–21. 10.2307/2118508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, RF, Bratslavsky, E, Finkenauer, C, & Vohs, KD (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, J, Dickhaut, J, & McCabe, K (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122–142. 10.1006/game.1995.1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanco, M, Engelmann, D, & Normann, HT (2011). A within-subject analysis of other-regarding preferences. Games and Economic Behavior, 72, 321–338. 10.1016/j.geb.2010.09.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, MB, & Kramer, RM (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 543–549. 10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, EJ, & Lovett, D (2013) Leadership and conditional cooperation in public good games: What difference does the game make? mimeo, University of Kent.Google Scholar
Cox, JC, Friedman, D, & Sadiraj, V (2008). Revealed altruism. Econometrica, 76, 31–69. 10.1111/j.0012-9682.2008.00817.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, JC, Ostrom, E, Sadiraj, V, & Walker, JM (2013). Provision versus appropriation in symmetric and asymmetric social dilemmas. Southern Economic Journal, 79, 496–512. 10.4284/0038-4038-2012.186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drouvelis, M, & Nosenzo, D (2013). Group identity and leading-by-example. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 414–425. 10.1016/j.joep.2013.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufwenberg, M, & Kirchsteiger, G (2004). A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 47, 268–298. 10.1016/j.geb.2003.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufwenberg, M, Gächter, S, & Hennig-Schmidt, H (2011). The framing of games and the psychology of play. Games and Economic Behavior, 73, 459–478. 10.1016/j.geb.2011.02.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, C, Kube, S, & Kurschilgen, M (2011) Can we manage first impressions in cooperation problems? An experimental study on “broken (and fixed) windows”. Max planck institute for research on collective goods discussion paper 2011/05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A, & Fischbacher, U (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54, 293–315. 10.1016/j.geb.2005.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E, & Schmidt, KM (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868. 10.1162/003355399556151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178. 10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U, & Gächter, S (2010). Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 100(1), 541–56 10.1257/aer.100.1.541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U, Gächter, S, & Fehr, E (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 71(3), 397–404. 10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00394-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fosgaard, T, Hansen, L, & Wengström, E (2014). Understanding the nature of cooperation variability. Journal of Public Economics, 120, 134–143. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gächter, S, & Renner, E (2004). Leading by example in the presence of free rider incentives, St Gallen: Mimeo.Google Scholar
Gächter, S, Kölle, F, & Quercia, S (2014) The abc of cooperation in voluntary contribution and common pool extraction. mimeo.Google Scholar
Goerg, SJ, & Walkowitz, G (2010). On the prevalence of framing effects across subject-pools in a two-person cooperation game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(6), 849–859. 10.1016/j.joep.2010.06.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiner, B (2004) The online recruitment system orsee—a guide for the organization of experiments in economics. Max planck institute of economics, papers on strategic interaction 2003-10.Google Scholar
Güth, W, Levati, MV, Sutter, M, & van der Heijden, E (2007). Leading by example with and without exclusion power in voluntary contribution experiments. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 1023–1042. 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2006.10.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haigner, SD, & Walkobinger, F (2010). To lead or not to lead. Economics Letters, 108, 93–95. 10.1016/j.econlet.2010.04.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levati, MV, Sutter, M, & van der Heijden, E (2007). Leading by example in a public goods experiment with heterogeneity and incomplete information. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51, 793–818. 10.1177/0022002707302796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, JA, & Lucking-Reiley, D (2002). The effects of seed money and refunds on charitable giving: Experimental evidence from a University Capital Campaign. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 215–233. 10.1086/324392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Normann, HT, & Rau, HA (2011) Step-Level Public Goods: Experimental Evidence. Beiträge zur Jahrestagung des Vereins für Socialpolitik 2011: Die Ordnung der Weltwirtschaft: Lektionen aus der Krise - Session: Experimental Economics I.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325, 419–422. 10.1126/science.1172133CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Park, ES (2000). Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: a further experimental study of framing effects on free-riding. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43, 405–421. 10.1016/S0167-2681(00)00128-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potters, J, Sefton, M, & Vesterlund, L (2007). Leading-by-example and signaling in voluntary contribution games: An experimental study. Economic Theory, 33, 169–182. 10.1007/s00199-006-0186-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivas, MF, & Sutter, M (2011). The benefits of voluntary leadership in experimental public goods games. Economics Letters, 112, 176–178. 10.1016/j.econlet.2011.04.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rustagi, D, Engel, S, & Kosfeld, M (2010). Conditional cooperation and costly monitoring explain success in forest commons management. Science, 330, 961–965. 10.1126/science.1193649CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sell, J, & Son, Y (1997). Comparing public goods with common pool resources: Three experiments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 118–137. 10.2307/2787100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sell, J, Chen, ZY, Hunter-Holmes, P, & Johansson, AC (2002). A cross-cultural comparison of public good and resource good settings. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65, 285–297. 10.2307/3090124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, R (1967) Die Strategiemethode zur Erforschung des eingeschränkt rationalen Verhaltens im Rahmen eines Oligopolexperiments. In: Beiträge zur experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung (pp. 136–168).Google Scholar
Shang, J, & Croson, R (2009). A field experiment in charitable contribution: The impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. Economic Journal, 119(540), 1422–1439. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02267.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonnemans, J, Schram, A, & Offerman, T (1998). Public good provision and public bad prevention: The effect of framing. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 34, 143–161. 10.1016/S0167-2681(97)00042-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willinger, M, & Ziegelmeyer, A (1999). Framing and cooperation in public good games: an experiment with an interior solution. Economics Letters, 65, 323–328. 10.1016/S0165-1765(99)00177-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Frackenpohl et al. supplementary material

Frackenpohl et. al. supplementary material
Download Frackenpohl et al. supplementary material(File)
File 49.5 KB