IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/mgtdec/v46y2025i4p2678-2687.html

Productive and Unproductive Effort Choices in Groups and Sharing: An Experimental Study

Author

Listed:
  • Mürüvvet Büyükboyacı
  • Emin Karagözoğlu
  • Serkan Küçükşenel

Abstract

Agents in collaborative relationships (e.g., business partnership and co‐authorship) frequently need to decide on the allocation of limited resources (e.g., time and money) to productive activities that increase the size of the joint surplus and unproductive, promotional activities that do not affect the size of the surplus but increase their (individual) likelihood of capturing a greater control/share of the surplus. Using a laboratory experiment, we first analyze the effect of the opportunity cost of unproductive investment on subjects' resource allocation decisions in the first stage. Second, we study whether (i) the opportunity cost of unproductive investment and (ii) the identity of the decision‐maker (human or computer) affect subjects' distributive decisions in the second stage. Three main insights emerge from our experiment: First, we find that subjects choose productive and unproductive investments equally likely both in low and high opportunity cost treatments. Second, subjects give less to their matched pairs if they choose unproductive investment in human treatment but not in computer treatment that suggests that subjects punish (by giving less) their matched pairs for allocating more resources to unproductive, promotional activities, a behavior that is not present when the allocation decision is made by a computer.

Suggested Citation

  • Mürüvvet Büyükboyacı & Emin Karagözoğlu & Serkan Küçükşenel, 2025. "Productive and Unproductive Effort Choices in Groups and Sharing: An Experimental Study," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 46(4), pages 2678-2687, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:mgtdec:v:46:y:2025:i:4:p:2678-2687
    DOI: 10.1002/mde.4492
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.4492
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/mde.4492?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. Hoffman Elizabeth & McCabe Kevin & Shachat Keith & Smith Vernon, 1994. "Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 346-380, November.
    2. Yildirim, Huseyin, 2007. "Proposal power and majority rule in multilateral bargaining with costly recognition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 167-196, September.
    3. Huseyin Yildirim, 2010. "Distribution of Surplus in Sequential Bargaining with Endogenous Recognition," Working Papers 10-17, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    4. Roman M. Sheremeta, 2013. "Overbidding And Heterogeneous Behavior In Contest Experiments," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 491-514, July.
    5. Ali, S. Nageeb, 2015. "Recognition for sale," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 16-29.
    6. R. Mark Isaac & James M. Walker, 1988. "Group Size Effects in Public Goods Provision: The Voluntary Contributions Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 103(1), pages 179-199.
    7. Daniel Houser & Robert Kurzban, 2002. "Revisiting Kindness and Confusion in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1062-1069, September.
    8. Levy, Gilat & Razin, Ronny, 2013. "Dynamic legislative decision making when interest groups control the agenda," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(5), pages 1862-1890.
    9. Anbarci, Nejat & Skaperdas, Stergios & Syropoulos, Constantinos, 2002. "Comparing Bargaining Solutions in the Shadow of Conflict: How Norms against Threats Can Have Real Effects," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 1-16, September.
    10. Jennifer Zelmer, 2003. "Linear Public Goods Experiments: A Meta-Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(3), pages 299-310, November.
    11. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A. & Laury, Susan K., 2002. "Private costs and public benefits: unraveling the effects of altruism and noisy behavior," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 255-276, February.
    12. March, Christoph, 2021. "Strategic interactions between humans and artificial intelligence: Lessons from experiments with computer players," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    13. Huseyin Yildirim, 2010. "Distribution of surplus in sequential bargaining with endogenous recognition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 41-57, January.
    14. Fonseca, Miguel A., 2009. "An experimental investigation of asymmetric contests," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 582-591, September.
    15. Johnson, Eric J. & Camerer, Colin & Sen, Sankar & Rymon, Talia, 2002. "Detecting Failures of Backward Induction: Monitoring Information Search in Sequential Bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 16-47, May.
    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. Andrzej Baranski & Ernesto Reuben, 2023. "Competing for Proposal Rights: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 20220085, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Mar 2023.
    2. Emin Karagözoğlu & Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2021. "Costly Preparations in Bargaining," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 123(2), pages 532-557, April.
    3. Arbel, Yuval & Bar-El, Ronen & Tobol, Yossef, 2016. "Fundraising to a real-life public good – evidence from the laboratory," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 27-37.
    4. Duk Gyoo Kim & Sang‐Hyun Kim, 2022. "Multilateral bargaining with proposer selection contest," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(1), pages 38-73, February.
    5. Yildirim, Mustafa, 2018. "Legislative bargaining with a stochastic surplus and costly recognition," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 102-105.
    6. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2019. "Folk theorems in a bargaining game with endogenous protocol," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 389-399, May.
    7. Goeschl, Timo & Kettner, Sara Elisa & Lohse, Johannes & Schwieren, Christiane, 2015. "What do we learn from public good games about voluntary climate action? Evidence from an artefactual field experiment," Working Papers 0595, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    8. Sarah Auster & Nenad Kos & Salvatore Piccolo, 2021. "Optimal pricing, private information and search for an outside offer," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(4), pages 758-777, December.
    9. 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).
    10. Anna Conte & M. Vittoria Levati & Natalia Montinari, 2019. "Experience in public goods experiments," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 65-93, February.
    11. Daniele Nosenzo & Simone Quercia & Martin Sefton, 2015. "Cooperation in small groups: the effect of group size," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(1), pages 4-14, March.
    12. Erik O. Kimbrough & Alexander Vostroknutov, 2016. "Norms Make Preferences Social," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 608-638, June.
    13. Andrzej Baranski, 2016. "Voluntary Contributions and Collective Redistribution," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 149-173, November.
    14. Spraggon, John & Oxoby, Robert J., 2009. "An experimental investigation of endowment source heterogeneity in two-person public good games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 102-105, August.
    15. Ali, S. Nageeb, 2015. "Recognition for sale," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 16-29.
    16. Alexandra Cortés Aguilar & Luis Alejandro Palacio Garc�a & Daniel Felipe Parra Carre�o, 2014. "Socios vs. extranos: identificación de la pertenencia al grupo en la contribución a los bienes públicos," Revista Ecos de Economía, Universidad EAFIT.
    17. Hakan Genc & Serkan Kucuksenel, 2019. "Bargaining in legislatures over private and public goods with endogenous recognition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 351-373, December.
    18. Cox, Caleb A. & Stoddard, Brock, 2018. "Strategic thinking in public goods games with teams," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 31-43.
    19. Felix Kolle, 2012. "Heterogeneity and Cooperation in Privileged Groups: The Role of Capability and Valuation on Public Goods Provision," Discussion Papers 2012-07, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    20. 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.

    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:wly:mgtdec:v:46:y:2025:i:4:p:2678-2687. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/7976 .

    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.