IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v90y2003i1p139-147.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tolerance of free-riding: The effects of defection size, defection pattern, and social orientation in a repeated public goods dilemma

Author

Listed:
  • Chen, Xiao-Ping
  • Bachrach, Daniel G.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Chen, Xiao-Ping & Bachrach, Daniel G., 2003. "Tolerance of free-riding: The effects of defection size, defection pattern, and social orientation in a repeated public goods dilemma," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 139-147, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:90:y:2003:i:1:p:139-147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749-5978(02)00511-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chen, Xiao-ping & Komorita, S. S., 1994. "The Effects of Communication and Commitment in a Public Goods Social Dilemma," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 367-386, December.
    2. Chen, Xiao-Ping & Au, Wing Tung & Komorita, S. S., 1996. "Sequential Choice in a Step-Level Public Goods Dilemma: The Effects of Criticality and Uncertainty," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 37-47, January.
    3. Pillutla, Madan M. & Chen, Xiao-Ping, 1999. "Social Norms and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: The Effects of Context and Feedback, , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 81-103, May.
    4. Brubaker, Earl R, 1975. "Free Ride, Free Revelation, or Golden Rule?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(1), pages 147-161, April.
    5. van de Kragt, Alphons J. C. & Orbell, John M. & Dawes, Robyn M., 1983. "The Minimal Contributing Set as a Solution to Public Goods Problems," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 77(1), pages 112-122, March.
    6. Budescu, David V. & Au, Wing Tung & Chen, Xiao-Ping, 1997. "Effects of Protocol of Play and Social Orientation on Behavior in Sequential Resource Dilemmas," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 179-193, March.
    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. Vveinhardt Jolita & Banikonytė Justina, 2017. "Development Perspectives of the Social Group Cohesion in Reducing Social Loafing," Management of Organizations: Systematic Research, Sciendo, vol. 77(1), pages 185-202, June.
    2. Nikki van Gerwen & Vincent Buskens & Tanja van der Lippe, 2018. "Individual training and employees’ cooperative behavior: Evidence from a contextualized laboratory experiment," Rationality and Society, , vol. 30(4), pages 432-462, November.
    3. Biele, Guido & Rieskamp, Jörg & Czienskowski, Uwe, 2008. "Explaining cooperation in groups: Testing models of reciprocity and learning," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(2), pages 89-105, July.
    4. Roman Trötschel & Marie van Treek & Caroline Heydenbluth & Kai Zhang & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "From Claiming to Creating Value: The Psychology of Negotiations on Common Resource Dilemmas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-26, April.
    5. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán-González & Matthew W. McCarter, 2015. "The Role of the Decision-Making Regime on Cooperation in a Workgroup Social Dilemma: An Examination of Cyberloafing," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-16, November.
    6. Ren, Tianyu & Zheng, Junjun, 2021. "Evolutionary dynamics in the spatial public goods game with tolerance-based expulsion and cooperation," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).

    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. Gee, Laura K. & Schreck, Michael J., 2018. "Do beliefs about peers matter for donation matching? Experiments in the field and laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 282-297.
    2. McCarter, Matthew W. & Rockmann, Kevin W. & Northcraft, Gregory B., 2010. "Is it even worth it? The effect of loss prospects in the outcome distribution of a public goods dilemma," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 1-12, January.
    3. Mak, Vincent & Zwick, Rami & Rao, Akshay R. & Pattaratanakun, Jake A., 2015. "“Pay what you want” as threshold public good provision," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 30-43.
    4. Laura Gee & Michael Schreck, 2016. "Do Beliefs About Peers Matter for Donation Matching? Experiments in the Field and Laboratory," Framed Field Experiments 00538, The Field Experiments Website.
    5. Federica Alberti & Edward J. Cartwright, 2016. "Full agreement and the provision of threshold public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 205-233, January.
    6. Ramzi Suleiman, 2022. "Economic Harmony—A Rational Theory of Fairness and Cooperation in Strategic Interactions," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-21, April.
    7. Jörg Spiller & Friedel Bolle, 2017. "Experimental investigations of coordination games: high success rates, invariant behavior, and surprising dynamics," Discussion Paper Series RECAP15 28, RECAP15, European University Viadrina, Frankfurt (Oder).
    8. Bolle, Friedel & Spiller, Jörg, 2016. "Not efficient but payoff dominant: Experimental investigations of equilibrium play in binary threshold public good games," Discussion Papers 379, European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder), Department of Business Administration and Economics.
    9. Spiller, Jörg & Bolle, Friedel, 2017. "Experimental investigations of binary threshold public good games," Discussion Papers 393, European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder), Department of Business Administration and Economics.
    10. Gee, Laura Katherine & Schreck, Michael J., 2017. "Do Beliefs about Peers Matter for Donation Matching? Experiments in the Field and Laboratory," IZA Discussion Papers 10956, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Au, Wing Tung & Chen, Xiao-Ping & Komorita, S. S., 1998. "A Probabilistic Model of Criticality in a Sequential Public Good Dilemma," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 274-293, September.
    12. Abele, Susanne & Stasser, Garold, 2007. "Continuous and step-level pay-off functions in public good games : a conceptual analysis," Papers 07-72, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    13. David M. McEvoy & James J. Murphy & John M. Spraggon & John K. Stranlund, 2011. "The problem of maintaining compliance within stable coalitions: experimental evidence," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 475-498, July.
    14. Na Li Dawson & Kathleen Segerson, 2008. "Voluntary Agreements with Industries: Participation Incentives with Industry-Wide Targets," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 97-114.
    15. Andreas Löschel & Dirk Rübbelke, 2014. "On the Voluntary Provision of International Public Goods," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 81(322), pages 195-204, April.
    16. Tuan, Tran Huu & Navrud, Stale, 2009. "Applying the dissonance-minimising format to value cultural heritage in developing countries," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(3), pages 1-17.
    17. Matthais Sutter, 2002. "Public Bad Prevention by Majority Voting on Redistribution – Experimental Evidence," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(5), pages 415-428, September.
    18. Tetsuo Yamamori & Kazuyuki Iwata, 2023. "Wage claim detracts reciprocity in labor relations: experimental study of gift exchange games," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 18(3), pages 573-597, July.
    19. Hal R. Arkes & John H. Kagel & Dimitry Mezhvinsky, 2017. "Effects of a Management–Labor Context and Team Play on Ultimatum Game Outcomes," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 83(4), pages 993-1011, April.
    20. Hillenbrand, Adrian & Winter, Fabian, 2018. "Volunteering under population uncertainty," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 65-81.

    More about this item

    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:eee:jobhdp:v:90:y:2003:i:1:p:139-147. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    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.