The Source and Significance of Confusion in Public Goods Experiments
AbstractEconomists use public goods experiments to develop and test theories of individual preferences and institutional design. Previous work demonstrates many participants in public goods experiments contribute to the public good out of confusion. We design experiments to provide insights on the consequences and causes of confusion. We establish that confusion amounts to more than statistical noise and does not dissipate with repetition (i.e. learning). Confused subjects use experimental parameters and the behavior of other players as cues, which confounds treatment effects and traditional strategies to identify other-regarding preferences through exogenous parameter changes and the modeling of reactions to other subjects decisions. We argue that confusion stems from an inaccurate understanding of game incentives (failure of game form recognition), which is a consequence of the framing and inadequate payoff information in standard instructions. Modified instructions can substantially reduce confusion, and, in turn, change the distribution of contributions to the public good.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by De Gruyter in its journal The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy.
Volume (Year): 10 (2010)
Issue (Month): 1 (July)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.degruyter.com
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Alexander Smith, 2012. "Comment on social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public good experiments," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(1), pages 923-931.
- Guillén, Pablo & Hing, Alexander, 2013. "Lying through Their Teeth: Third Party Advice and Truth Telling in a Strategy Proof Mechanism," Working Papers 2013-11, University of Sydney, School of Economics.
- Ralph-C Bayer & Elke Renner & Rupert Sausbruber, 2012. "Confusion and Learning in the Voluntary Contributions Game," Discussion Papers 2012-18, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
- Toke Reinholt Fosgaard & Lars Gårn Hansen & Erik Wengström, 2011. "Framing and Misperceptions in a Public Good Experiment," IFRO Working Paper 2011/11, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics, revised Oct 2012.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.