IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jgames/v16y2025i3p22-d1649724.html

New Categories of Conditional Contribution Strategies in the Public Goods Game

Author

Listed:
  • Klaudia Schäffer

    (Department of Plant Systematics, Ecology and Theoretical Biology, Eötvös University, H1117 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Adrienn Král

    (Department of Plant Systematics, Ecology and Theoretical Biology, Eötvös University, H1117 Budapest, Hungary
    Institute of Evolution, HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research, H1121 Budapest, Hungary)

  • Ádám Kun

    (Department of Plant Systematics, Ecology and Theoretical Biology, Eötvös University, H1117 Budapest, Hungary
    Institute of Evolution, HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research, H1121 Budapest, Hungary
    Parmenides Center for the Conceptual Foundations of Science, Parmenides Foundation, D82343 Pöcking, Germany)

Abstract

Human cooperation is ubiquitous and instinctive. We are among the most cooperative species on Earth. Still, research mostly focuses on why we cooperate, instead of understanding why some of us do not do so. The public goods game can be used to map human cooperation as well as to study free riding. We acquired data through an online, unincentivized questionnaire which prompted respondents to choose how much of an initial endowment to contribute to a common pool. The respondents contributed, on average, 54% of their initial endowment to the common pool. The usual categorization scheme of the elicited conditional contribution pattern discerns unconditional free riders who do not contribute irrespective of the contributions of others and calls everyone a conditional cooperator who correlates their contribution with that of the others. However, someone consistently offering less than the others should not be called a cooperator. Consequently, based on the conditional contribution patterns among our respondents, we suggest a recategorization of contribution patterns into the following categories: unconditional cooperator (1.5%), unconditional free rider (10.6%), perfect conditional cooperator (42.6%), hump-shaped contributor (0.7%), V-shaped contributor (0.4%), conditional cooperator (16.6%), conditional free rider (13.6%), conditional contributor (6.4%), negative conditional contributor (0%), and others (7.6%). We only call someone a cooperator if the respondent at least matches others’ contribution, and call everyone consistently offering less a free rider. Furthermore, we found no difference between the contributions of women and men. No correlation of contribution with age, educational attainment, and size of the residential settlement was found. Students’ contributions were not different from non-students’ contributions. We found a significant correlation of the contribution to the common pool with hypercompetitive orientation (negative correlation) and the self-assessed willingness to take risks in general (positive correlation).

Suggested Citation

  • Klaudia Schäffer & Adrienn Král & Ádám Kun, 2025. "New Categories of Conditional Contribution Strategies in the Public Goods Game," Games, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-21, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jgames:v:16:y:2025:i:3:p:22-:d:1649724
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/16/3/22/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4336/16/3/22/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johannes Abeler & Daniele Nosenzo, 2015. "Self-selection into laboratory experiments: pro-social motives versus monetary incentives," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 195-214, June.
    2. Makowsky, Michael D. & Orman, Wafa Hakim & Peart, Sandra J., 2014. "Playing with other people's money: Contributions to public goods by trustees," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 44-55.
    3. Diederich, Johannes & Goeschl, Timo & Waichman, Israel, 2016. "Group size and the (in)efficiency of pure public good provision," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 272-287.
    4. Kocher, Martin G. & Cherry, Todd & Kroll, Stephan & Netzer, Robert J. & Sutter, Matthias, 2008. "Conditional cooperation on three continents," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 175-178, December.
    5. Orazio Attanasio & Luca Pellerano & Sandra Polanía Reyes, 2009. "Building Trust? Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes and Social Capital," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 30(2), pages 139-177, June.
    6. Annarita Colasante & Aurora García‐Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzis & Andrea Morone & Tiziana Temerario, 2019. "Intragroup competition in public good games: The role of relative performance incentives and risk attitudes," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 21(5), pages 847-865, October.
    7. Jason A. Aimone & Laurence R. Iannaccone & Michael D. Makowsky & Jared Rubin, 2013. "Endogenous Group Formation via Unproductive Costs," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(4), pages 1215-1236.
    8. Belot, Michele & Duch, Raymond & Miller, Luis, 2015. "A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 26-33.
    9. Vanessa Mertins & Andrea B Schote & Wolfgang Hoffeld & Michele Griessmair & Jobst Meyer, 2011. "Genetic Susceptibility for Individual Cooperation Preferences: The Role of Monoamine Oxidase A Gene ( MAOA ) in the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(6), pages 1-9, June.
    10. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David B. Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2017. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," NBER Working Papers 23943, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1645-1692.
    12. Rustagi, Devesh, 2010. "Conditional Cooperation and Costly Monitoring Explain Success in Forest Commons Management," MPRA Paper 124049, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Jordi Brandts & Gary Charness, 2011. "The strategy versus the direct-response method: a first survey of experimental comparisons," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 375-398, September.
    14. Fischbacher, Urs & Gächter, Simon & Quercia, Simone, 2012. "The behavioral validity of the strategy method in public good experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 897-913.
    15. Ferraro Paul J & Vossler Christian A, 2010. "The Source and Significance of Confusion in Public Goods Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-42, July.
    16. Roberto Burlando & Francesco Guala, 2005. "Heterogeneous Agents in Public Goods Experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(1), pages 35-54, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Angela Stefania Bergantino & Sara Gil‐Gallen & Andrea Morone, 2023. "Do risk and competition trigger conditional cooperation? Evidence from public good experiments," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(1), pages 39-73, March.
    2. Weber, Till O. & Schulz, Jonathan F. & Beranek, Benjamin & Lambarraa-Lehnhardt, Fatima & Gächter, Simon, 2023. "The behavioral mechanisms of voluntary cooperation across culturally diverse societies: Evidence from the US, the UK, Morocco, and Turkey," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 134-152.
    3. Thöni, Christian & Volk, Stefan, 2018. "Conditional cooperation: Review and refinement," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 37-40.
    4. Volk, Stefan & Thöni, Christian & Ruigrok, Winfried, 2012. "Temporal stability and psychological foundations of cooperation preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 664-676.
    5. Kölle, Felix & Gächter, Simon & Quercia, Simone, 2014. "The ABC of Cooperation in Voluntary Contribution and Common Pool Extraction Games," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100417, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Malte Baader & Simon Gaechter & Kyeongtae Lee & Martin Sefton, 2022. "Social preferences and the variability of conditional cooperation," Discussion Papers 2022-13, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    7. 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.
    8. Gächter, Simon & Kölle, Felix & Quercia, Simone, 2022. "Preferences and perceptions in Provision and Maintenance public goods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 338-355.
    9. Maxwell N. Burton-Chellew & Victoire D’Amico & Claire Guérin, 2022. "The Strategy Method Risks Conflating Confusion with a Social Preference for Conditional Cooperation in Public Goods Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-10, October.
    10. Jerg Gutmann & Roee Sarel & Stefan Voigt, 2025. "Measuring constitutional loyalty," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 205(1), pages 1-18, October.
    11. Toke R. Fosgaard, 2018. "Cooperation stability: A representative sample in the lab," IFRO Working Paper 2018/08, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    12. Fischbacher, Urs & Gächter, Simon & Quercia, Simone, 2012. "The behavioral validity of the strategy method in public good experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 897-913.
    13. Felix Kölle & Simone Quercia & Egon Tripodi, 2023. "Social Preferences under the Shadow of the Future," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 406, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    14. Breitkopf, Laura & Chowdhury, Shyamal K. & Priyam, Shambhavi & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah & Sutter, Matthias, 2020. "Do economic preferences of children predict behavior?," DICE Discussion Papers 342, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    15. Pol Campos-Mercade & Claes Ek & Magnus Soderberg & Florian H. Schneider, 2025. "Social Preferences and Environmental Externalities," CESifo Working Paper Series 11895, CESifo.
    16. Kevin Bauer & Andrej Gill, 2024. "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Algorithmic Assessments, Transparency, and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 226-248, March.
    17. Chowdhury Mohammad Sakib Anwar & Konstantinos Georgalos, 2024. "Position uncertainty in a sequential public goods game: an experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 27(4), pages 820-853, September.
    18. Bauer, Michal & Chytilová, Julie & Miguel, Edward, 2020. "Using survey questions to measure preferences: Lessons from an experimental validation in Kenya," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    19. Bluffstone, Randy & Dannenberg, Astrid & Martinsson, Peter & Jha, Prakash & Bista, Rajesh, 2020. "Cooperative behavior and common pool resources: Experimental evidence from community forest user groups in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    20. Thiemann, Petra & Schulz, Jonathan & Sunde, Uwe & Thöni, Christian, 2022. "Selection into experiments: New evidence on the role of preferences, cognition, and recruitment protocols," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jgames:v:16:y:2025:i:3:p:22-:d:1649724. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.