Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-6tpvb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T21:55:29.448Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strength of the Social Dilemma in a Public Goods Experiment: An Exploration of the Error Hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Marc Willinger  and
Anthony Ziegelmeyer
Marc Willinger*
Affiliation:
Institut Universitaire de France, BETA-Theme—Université Louis Pasteur, 61, avenue de la Forêt Noire, F-67085 Strasbourg Cedex, France
Anthony Ziegelmeyer
Affiliation:
BETA-Theme—Université Louis Pasteur, 61, avenue de la Forêt Noire, F-67085 Strasbourg Cedex, France
*
email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present the results of an experiment on voluntary contributions to a public good with a unique dominant strategy equilibrium in the interior of the strategy space. The treatment variable is the equilibrium contribution level. By increasing the equilibrium contribution level, we reduce the “strength” of the social dilemma. Though we observe that the average level of contribution rises with the equilibrium contribution level, the average rate of over-contribution is not affected in a systematic way. Over-contribution is statistically significant only at the lower level of equilibrium contribution but not at the higher levels. We show that the Anderson et al. (1998, Journal of Public Economics. 70, 297-323) logit equilibrium model which combines altruism and decision errors fits quite well our laboratory data.

Keywords

experimental economicspublic goodsinterior equilibriaaltruismdecision errorlogit equilibrium

JEL classification

H41: Public Goods C92: Laboratory, Group Behavior C72: Noncooperative Games
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , October 2001 , pp. 131 - 144
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 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

*

To whom correspondence should be addressed.

References

Anderson, S., Goeree, J., and Holt, C. (1998). “A Theoretical Analysis of Altruism and Decision Error in Public Goods Games.” Journal of Public Economics. 70, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. (1993). “An Experimental Test of the Public Goods Crowding-Out Hypothesis.” American Economic Review. 83, 1317–1327.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J. (1995). “Cooperation in Public Goods Experiments: Kindness or Confusion?” American Economic Review. 85, 891–904.Google Scholar
Bolton, G. and Ockenfels, A. (2000). “ERC—A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity and Competition.” American Economic Review. 90, 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BounMy, K. (1998). “A VB Software for Experiments on Public Goods.” BETA, CNRS.Google Scholar
Brandts, J. and Schram, A. (2001). “Cooperation and Noise in Public Goods Experiments: Applying the Contribution Function Approach.” Journal of Public Economics. 79, 399–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, K., Godby, R., Mestelman, S., and Muller, R.A. (1998). “Crowding Out Voluntary Contributions to Public Goods.” Working Paper 98-03, McMaster University.Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K. (1999). “A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 114, 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, C.A. and Laury, S.K. (forthcoming). “Theoretical Explanations of Treatment Effects in Voluntary Contributions Experiments.” In Plott, C.R. and Smith, V. (eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economic Results. North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Isaac, R.M. and Walker, J. (1998). “Nash as an Organizing Principle in the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods: Experimental Evidence.” Experimental Economics. 1, 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keser, C. (1996). “Voluntary Contributions to a Public Good when Partial Contribution is a Dominant Strategy.” Economics Letters. 50, 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laury, S.K. and Holt, C.A. (forthcoming). “Voluntary Provision of Public Goods: Experimental Results with Interior Nash Equilibria.” In Plott, C.R. and Smith, V. (eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economic Results. North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Ledyard, J.O. (1995). “Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research.” In Kagel, J. and Roth, A. (eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Levine, D. (1998). “Modeling Altruism and Spitefulness in Experiments.” Review of Economic Dynamics. 1, 593–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfrey, T. and Prisbrey, J. (1997). “Anomalous Behavior in Linear Public Goods Experiments: How Much and Why?” American Economic Review. 87, 829–846.Google Scholar
Sefton, M. and Steinberg, R. (1996). “Reward Structures in Public Good Experiments.” Journal of Public Economics. 61, 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, R. (1991). “Properties of a Measure of Predictive Success.” Mathematical Social Sciences. 21, 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, R. and Krischker, S. (1983). “Comparison of Two Theories for Characteristic Function Experiments.” In Tietz, R. (ed.), Aspiration Levels in Bargaining and Economic Decision Making. Springer Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp. 259–264.Google Scholar
van Dijk, F., Sonnemans, J., and van Winden, F. (2000). “Social Ties in a Public Good Experiment.” Working Paper, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Willinger, M. and Ziegelmeyer, A. (1999). “Non-Cooperative Behavior in a Public Goods Experiment with Interior Solution.” Working Paper BETA 9922, University of Strasbourg.Google Scholar