IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cuf/journl/y2015v16i1zhang.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cognitive Ability and Cooperation: Evidence from the Public Goods Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Su Zhang

    (School of Economics, Central University of Finance and Economics)

  • Wei Gao

    (School of Economics, Central University of Finance and Economics)

  • Binbin Fan

    (School of Finance, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics)

Abstract

The most important unanswered question in evolutionary biology, and more generally in the social sciences, is how cooperative behavior evolved. What it takes to bring out our cooperative spirit is a scientific puzzle that is driv- ing basic scientific research and shaping the future of science. By using the public goods game model, we designed four types of experiments, namely, non-punishment (NP), free punishment (FP), cost punishment (CP), and ex- ternal punishment (EP) experiment, to test the hypothesis that people with higher cognitive abilities have internalized a higher tendency of cooperation. We found that people with higher cognitive abilities are more willing to sacri- fice private gain for the public good in FP, CP, and EP experiment; They also imposed more "pro-social punishment" (spending time and energy to punish unfair actions, even though there’s nothing to be gained by these actions for themselves), and less "antisocial punishment" (punishing the high contributors as much as they punished the low contributors).

Suggested Citation

  • Su Zhang & Wei Gao & Binbin Fan, 2015. "Cognitive Ability and Cooperation: Evidence from the Public Goods Experiments," Annals of Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, vol. 16(1), pages 43-68, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:cuf:journl:y:2015:v:16:i:1:zhang
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://down.aefweb.net/AefArticles/aef160103Zhang.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon Gachter & Ernst Fehr, 2000. "Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 980-994, September.
    2. Wit, Arjaan P. & Wilke, Henk A. M., 1992. "The effect of social categorization on cooperation in three types of social dilemmas," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 135-151, March.
    3. Christelis, Dimitris & Jappelli, Tullio & Padula, Mario, 2010. "Cognitive abilities and portfolio choice," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 18-38, January.
    4. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    5. Laurent Denant-Boemont & David Masclet & Charles Noussair, 2007. "Punishment, counterpunishment and sanction enforcement in a social dilemma experiment," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 33(1), pages 145-167, October.
    6. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2002. "Altruistic punishment in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6868), pages 137-140, January.
    7. Nikiforakis, Nikos, 2008. "Punishment and counter-punishment in public good games: Can we really govern ourselves," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 91-112, February.
    8. C. M. Van Praag & J. S. Cramer, 2001. "The Roots of Entrepreneurship and Labour Demand: Individual Ability and Low Risk Aversion," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 68(269), pages 45-62, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zvonimir Bašic & Parampreet C. Bindra & Daniela Glätzle-Rützler & Angelo Romano & Matthias Sutter & Claudia Zoller, 2024. "The roots of cooperation," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2024_02, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jean-Robert Tyran & Thomas Markussen & Louis Putterman, 2011. "Self-Organization for Collective Action: An Experimental Study of Voting on Formal, Informal, and No Sanction Regimes," Vienna Economics Papers vie1103, University of Vienna, Department of Economics.
    2. Thomas Markussen & Louis Putterman & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2011. "Self-Organization for Collective Action: An Experimental Study of Voting on Formal, Informal, and No Sanction Regimes," Working Papers 2011-4, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    3. Christian Thöni, 2014. "Inequality aversion and antisocial punishment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 529-545, April.
    4. Rockenbach, Bettina & Wolff, Irenaeus, 2009. "Institution design in social dilemmas: How to design if you must?," MPRA Paper 16922, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Gächter, Simon & Herrmann, Benedikt, 2011. "The limits of self-governance when cooperators get punished: Experimental evidence from urban and rural Russia," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 193-210, February.
    6. Drouvelis, Michalis & Malaeb, Bilal & Vlassopoulos, Michael & Wahba, Jackline, 2021. "Cooperation in a fragmented society: Experimental evidence on Syrian refugees and natives in Lebanon," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 176-191.
    7. Daniele Nosenzo & Martin Sefton, 2012. "Promoting Cooperation: the Distribution of Reward and Punishment Power," Discussion Papers 2012-08, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    8. Alexandra Baier & Loukas Balafoutas & Tarek Jaber-Lopez, 2023. "Ostracism and theft in heterogeneous groups," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(1), pages 193-222, March.
    9. Kenju Kamei & Smriti Sharma & Matthew J. Walker, 2023. "Sanction Enforcement among Third Parties:New Experimental Evidence from Two Societies," Keio-IES Discussion Paper Series 2023-010, Institute for Economics Studies, Keio University.
    10. Zuzana Berná & Jiøí Špalek, 2012. "The decentralization of punishments in experiments with public goods," MUNI ECON Working Papers 05, Masaryk University, revised Mar 2013.
    11. Xu, Xue, 2018. "Experiments on cooperation, institutions, and social preferences," Other publications TiSEM d3cf4dba-b0f3-4643-a267-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Fu, Tingting & Ji, Yunan & Kamei, Kenju & Putterman, Louis, 2017. "Punishment can support cooperation even when punishable," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 84-87.
    13. Dirk Engelmann & Nikos Nikiforakis, 2015. "In the long-run we are all dead: on the benefits of peer punishment in rich environments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(3), pages 561-577, October.
    14. Choi, Jung-Kyoo & Ahn, T.K., 2013. "Strategic reward and altruistic punishment support cooperation in a public goods game experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 17-30.
    15. Nikiforakis, Nikos, 2010. "Feedback, punishment and cooperation in public good experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 689-702, March.
    16. Balafoutas, Loukas & Nikiforakis, Nikos, 2012. "Norm enforcement in the city: A natural field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1773-1785.
    17. Stoop, Jan & van Soest, Daan & Vyrastekova, Jana, 2011. "Carrots without Bite: On the Ineffectiveness of 'Rewards' in sustaining Cooperation in Social Dilemmas," MPRA Paper 30538, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Guererk, Oezguer & Rockenbach, Bettina & Wolff, Irenaeus, 2010. "The effects of punishment in dynamic public-good games," MPRA Paper 22097, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Xiaoting Zheng & Puyan Nie, 2013. "Effective Punishment Needs Legitimacy," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 89(287), pages 522-544, December.
    20. Andreas Nicklisch & Irenaeus Wolff, 2011. "Cooperation Norms in Multiple‐Stage Punishment," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 13(5), pages 791-827, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cognitive ability; Pro-social punishment; Antisocial punishment; Cooperative gain;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A10 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - General
    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cuf:journl:y:2015:v:16:i:1:zhang. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Qiang Gao (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/emcufcn.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.