IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v37y2025i4p474-512.html

Social value orientation and learning in repeated step-level public goods games: An experimental investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Loes Bouman
  • Jacob Dijkstra

Abstract

How individuals value their own and others’ outcomes is conceptualized as their Social Value Orientation (SVO). Research demonstrates that SVO is a valid predictor of cooperative behavior across various empirical settings. However, once individuals interact repeatedly, the relative strength and stability of the SVO–behavior link are less clear cut. We postulate that learning mechanisms have a bearing on cooperative behavior and potentially override the influence of SVO. In an experiment with a Step-Level Public Goods design with impact asymmetry ( N = 120), participants were randomly assigned to groups of five and interacted for six rounds. SVO was measured with the 9-item Triple-Dominance Measure. Using a multi-level Bayesian approach, we corroborate that SVO is predictive of behavior at the onset of interaction. Yet, after the first interaction, the relationship between SVO and behavior virtually disappears.

Suggested Citation

  • Loes Bouman & Jacob Dijkstra, 2025. "Social value orientation and learning in repeated step-level public goods games: An experimental investigation," Rationality and Society, , vol. 37(4), pages 474-512, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:37:y:2025:i:4:p:474-512
    DOI: 10.1177/10434631251369684
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10434631251369684
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/10434631251369684?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon Gächter & Elke Renner, 2010. "The effects of (incentivized) belief elicitation in public goods experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(3), pages 364-377, September.
    2. Nax, Heinrich H. & Murphy, Ryan O. & Ackermann, Kurt A., 2015. "Interactive preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 133-136.
    3. Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo & Di Paolo, Roberto & Menicagli, Dario & Pizziol, Veronica & Ricciardi, Emiliano & Serti, Francesco, 2022. "Prosocial behavior in emergencies: Evidence from blood donors recruitment and retention during the COVID-19 pandemic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 314(C).
    4. Dreber, Anna & Fudenberg, Drew & Rand, David G., 2014. "Who cooperates in repeated games: The role of altruism, inequity aversion, and demographics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 41-55.
    5. Colin Camerer & Teck Ho & Kuan Chong, 2003. "Models of Thinking, Learning, and Teaching in Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 192-195, May.
    6. Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran & Mestelman, Stuart & Nainar, Khalid & Shehata, Mohamed, 2009. "The impact of social value orientation and risk attitudes on trust and reciprocity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 368-380, June.
    7. Jennifer Zelmer, 2003. "Linear Public Goods Experiments: A Meta-Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(3), pages 299-310, November.
    8. 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.
    9. Neugebauer, Tibor & Perote, Javier & Schmidt, Ulrich & Loos, Malte, 2009. "Selfish-biased conditional cooperation: On the decline of contributions in repeated public goods experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 52-60, February.
    10. Urs Fischbacher & Simon Gachter, 2010. "Social Preferences, Beliefs, and the Dynamics of Free Riding in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 541-556, March.
    11. Ho, Teck-Hua & Camerer, Colin & Weigelt, Keith, 1998. "Iterated Dominance and Iterated Best Response in Experimental "p-Beauty Contests."," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 947-969, September.
    12. Goedkoop, F. & Dijkstra, J. & Flache, A., 2022. "A social network perspective on involvement in community energy initiatives: The role of direct and extended social ties to initiators," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    13. Ryan O. Murphy & Kurt A. Ackerman & Michel J. J. Handgraaf, 2011. "Measuring social value orientation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 771-781, December.
    14. Nax, Heinrich H. & Burton-Chellew, Maxwell N. & West, Stuart A. & Young, H. Peyton, 2016. "Learning in a black box," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68714, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Nax, Heinrich H. & Burton-Chellew, Maxwell N. & West, Stuart A. & Young, H. Peyton, 2016. "Learning in a black box," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-15.
    16. Andreoni, James, 1995. "Cooperation in Public-Goods Experiments: Kindness or Confusion?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 891-904, September.
    17. Carlos A. de Matos Fernandes & Dieko M. Bakker & Jacob Dijkstra, 2022. "Assessing the test-retest reliability of the social value orientation slider measure," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(1), pages 31-49, January.
    18. Amnon Rapoport & Darryl A Seale & Andrew M Colman, 2015. "Is Tit-for-Tat the Answer? On the Conclusions Drawn from Axelrod's Tournaments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-11, July.
    19. Fischbacher, Urs & Gachter, Simon & Fehr, Ernst, 2001. "Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(3), pages 397-404, June.
    20. Murphy, Ryan O. & Ackermann, Kurt A. & Handgraaf, Michel J. J., 2011. "Measuring Social Value Orientation," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(8), pages 771-781, December.
    21. Axelrod, Robert, 1986. "An Evolutionary Approach to Norms," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 80(4), pages 1095-1111, December.
    22. de Matos Fernandes, Carlos A. & Bakker, Dieko M. & Dijkstra, Jacob, 2022. "Assessing the test-retest reliability of the social value orientation slider measure," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 31-49, January.
    23. Kurt A. Ackermann & Ryan O. Murphy, 2019. "Explaining Cooperative Behavior in Public Goods Games: How Preferences and Beliefs Affect Contribution Levels," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-34, March.
    24. Croson, Rachel & Fatas, Enrique & Neugebauer, Tibor, 2005. "Reciprocity, matching and conditional cooperation in two public goods games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 95-101, April.
    25. 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.
    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. Kurt A. Ackermann & Ryan O. Murphy, 2019. "Explaining Cooperative Behavior in Public Goods Games: How Preferences and Beliefs Affect Contribution Levels," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-34, March.
    2. Martin G. Kocher & Peter Martinsson & Kristian Ove R. Myrseth & Conny E. Wollbrant, 2017. "Strong, bold, and kind: self-control and cooperation in social dilemmas," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(1), pages 44-69, March.
    3. Yin, Xile & Li, Jianbiao & Bao, Te, 2019. "Does overconfidence promote cooperation? Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 119-133.
    4. Hongyu Guan & Xianchen Zhu & Ping Zhang, 2016. "Rule-Inequality-Aversion Preference and Conditional Cooperation in Public Goods Experiments: Economic Experiment Evidence from China," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 799-825, July.
    5. Masiliūnas, Aidas & Nax, Heinrich H., 2020. "Framing and repeated competition," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 604-619.
    6. Gaudeul, Alexia & Crosetto, Paolo & Riener, Gerhard, 2017. "Better stuck together or free to go? Of the stability of cooperation when individuals have outside options," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 99-112.
    7. Grolleau, Gilles & Sutan, Angela & Vranceanu, Radu, 2016. "Do people contribute more to intra-temporal or inter-temporal public goods?," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 186-195.
    8. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2015. "The Jurisdiction of the Man Within – Introspection, Identity, and Cooperation in a Public Good Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2015_01, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    9. Guillen, Pablo & Fatas, Enrique & Brañas-Garza, Pablo, 2010. "Inducing efficient conditional cooperation patterns in public goods games, an experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 872-883, December.
    10. Jordi Brandts & Christina Rott & Carles Solà, 2016. "Not just like starting over - Leadership and revivification of cooperation in groups," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 792-818, December.
    11. Takeuchi, Ai & Seki, Erika, 2023. "Coordination and free-riding problems in the provision of multiple public goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 95-121.
    12. Jun Maekawa & Koji Shimada & Ai Takeuchi, 2022. "Sustainability of renewable energy investment motivations during a feed-in-tariff scheme transition: evidence from a laboratory experiment," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 83-101, January.
    13. Smith, Alexander, 2011. "Group composition and conditional cooperation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 616-622.
    14. Urs Fischbacher & Simon Gaechter, 2008. "Heterogeneous Social Preferences And The Dynamics Of Free Riding In Public Good Experiments," Discussion Papers 2008-07, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    15. Boosey, Luke A., 2017. "Conditional cooperation in network public goods experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 108-116.
    16. Kreitmair, Ursula & Bower-Bir, Jacob, 2021. "Too different to solve climate change? Experimental evidence on the effects of production and benefit heterogeneity on collective action," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    17. repec:cgr:cgsser:06-02 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. repec:cgr:cgsser:03-11 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Anna Conte & M. Vittoria Levati & Natalia Montinari, 2019. "Experience in public goods experiments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 65-93, February.
    20. Hoeft, Leonard & Mill, Wladislaw, 2024. "Abuse of power," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 305-324.
    21. Urs Fischbacher & Simon Gachter, 2010. "Social Preferences, Beliefs, and the Dynamics of Free Riding in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 541-556, March.
    22. Paolo Crosetto & Alexia Gaudeul & Gerhard Riener, 2012. "Partnerships, Imperfect Monitoring and Outside Options: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-052, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.

    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:sae:ratsoc:v:37:y:2025:i:4:p:474-512. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.