IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uea/wcbess/15-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Variation in experimental instructions: Punishment in public goods games

Author

Listed:
  • Abhijit Ramalingam

    (University of East Anglia)

  • Antonio J. Morales

    (Universidad de Malaga)

  • James M. Walker

    (Indiana University)

Abstract

We provide evidence that more explicit, and hence longer, instructions can affect behaviour in a public goods game with punishment. Instructions that highlight the positive externality associated with public goods contributions, provide more examples, and emphasize fundamental aspects of the decision setting are associated with higher contribution levels in games with punishment opportunities when compared to shorter, less explicit instructions. These changes are not found to impact behaviour in the simpler contribution game without punishment.

Suggested Citation

  • Abhijit Ramalingam & Antonio J. Morales & James M. Walker, 2016. "Variation in experimental instructions: Punishment in public goods games," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 15-22R, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    • Handle: RePEc:uea:wcbess:15-22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/166500/205758/CBESS+15-22R.pdf/ef21bd13-892a-4860-8b90-331f3472d465
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ramalingam, Abhijit & Godoy, Sara & Morales, Antonio J. & Walker, James M., 2016. "An individualistic approach to institution formation in public good games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 18-36.
    2. Bigoni, M. & Dragone, D., 2012. "Effective and efficient experimental instructions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 460-463.
    3. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    4. 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.
    5. Ananish Chaudhuri, 2011. "Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: a selective survey of the literature," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(1), pages 47-83, 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. Abhijit Ramalingam & Antonio J. Morales & James M. Walker, 2017. "Peer sanctioning in isomorphic provision and appropriation social dilemmas," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 16-09R, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    2. Abhijit Ramalingam & Antonio J. Morales & James M. Walker, 2016. "Peer sanctioning in isomorphic provision and appropriation social dilemmas," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 16-09, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..

    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. Ramalingam, Abhijit & Morales, Antonio J. & Walker, James M., 2018. "Varying experimental instructions to improve comprehension: Punishment in public goods games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 66-73.
    2. DeAngelo, Gregory & Gee, Laura K., 2020. "Peers or police?: The effect of choice and type of monitoring in the provision of public goods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 210-227.
    3. Abhijit Ramalingam & Antonio J. Morales & James M. Walker, 2018. "Peer Punishment in Repeated Isomorphic Give and Take Social Dilemmas," Working Papers 18-15, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    4. Kamei, Kenju, 2016. "Information Disclosure and Cooperation in a Finitely-repeated Dilemma: Experimental Evidence," MPRA Paper 75100, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David, 2019. "Using ethical dilemmas to predict antisocial choices with real payoff consequences: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 195-215.
    6. De Geest, Lawrence R. & Kingsley, David C., 2021. "Norm enforcement with incomplete information," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 403-430.
    7. Kenju Kamei & Louis Putterman, 2018. "Reputation Transmission Without Benefit To The Reporter: A Behavioral Underpinning Of Markets In Experimental Focus," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 158-172, January.
    8. Khadjavi, Menusch & Lange, Andreas & Nicklisch, Andreas, 2014. "The Social Value of Transparency and Accountability: Experimental Evidence from Asymmetric Public Good Games," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100512, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    9. 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.
    10. Nicklisch, Andreas & Grechenig, Kristoffel & Thöni, Christian, 2016. "Information-sensitive Leviathans," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-13.
    11. Ramalingam, Abhijit & Godoy, Sara & Morales, Antonio J. & Walker, James M., 2016. "An individualistic approach to institution formation in public good games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 18-36.
    12. Liu, Jia & Sonntag, Axel & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2022. "Information defaults in repeated public good provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 356-369.
    13. Marcin, Isabel & Robalo, Pedro & Tausch, Franziska, 2019. "Institutional endogeneity and third-party punishment in social dilemmas," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 243-264.
    14. Nikos Nikiforakis & Helen Mitchell, 2014. "Mixing the carrots with the sticks: third party punishment and reward," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, March.
    15. Stephen Cheung, 2014. "New insights into conditional cooperation and punishment from a strategy method experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(1), pages 129-153, March.
    16. Ramalingam, Abhijit & Stoddard, Brock V. & Walker, James M., 2019. "The market for talent: Competition for resources and self-governance in teams," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 268-284.
    17. Bernd Irlenbusch & Janna Ter Meer, 2015. "Lying in public good games with and without punishment," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 06-02, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences.
    18. De Geest, Lawrence R. & Kingsley, David C., 2019. "Endowment heterogeneity, incomplete information & institutional choice in public good experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    19. Theodore Eisenberg & Christoph Engel, 2012. "Assuring Adequate Deterrence in Tort: A Public Good Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2012_07, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    20. Gürerk, Özgür & Irlenbusch, Bernd & Rockenbach, Bettina, 2014. "On cooperation in open communities," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 220-230.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    public goods; punishment; instructions; contributions; punishment; methodology;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:uea:wcbess:15-22. 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: Cara Liggins (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esueauk.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.