Cooperation in Small Groups: The Effect of Group Size
We study the effect of group size on cooperation in voluntary contribution mechanism games. As in previous experiments, we study four- and eight-person groups in high and low marginal per capita return (MPCR) conditions. We find a positive effect of group size in the low MPCR condition, as in previous experiments. However, in the high MPCR condition we observe a negative group size effect. We extend the design to investigate two- and three-person groups in the high MPCR condition, and find that cooperation is highest of all in two-person groups. The findings in the high MPCR condition are consistent with those from n-person prisonerâ€™s dilemma and oligopoly experiments that suggest it is more difficult to sustain cooperation in larger groups. The findings from the low MPCR condition suggest that this effect can be overridden. In particular, when cooperation is low other factors, such as considerations of the social benefits of contributing (which increase with group size), may dominate any negative group size effect.
|Date of creation:||May 2013|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (44) 0115 951 5620
Fax: (0115) 951 4159
Web page: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/economics/cedex/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Steffen Huck & Hans-Theo Normann & Jörg Oechssler, 2001.
"Two are Few and Four are Many: Number Effects in Experimental Oligopolies,"
Bonn Econ Discussion Papers
bgse12_2001, University of Bonn, Germany.
- Huck, Steffen & Normann, Hans-Theo & Oechssler, Jorg, 2004. "Two are few and four are many: number effects in experimental oligopolies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 435-446, April.
- Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
- Jennifer Zelmer, 2003. "Linear Public Goods Experiments: A Meta-Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 299-310, November.
- 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.
- Isaac, R. Mark & Walker, James M. & Williams, Arlington W., 1994. "Group size and the voluntary provision of public goods : Experimental evidence utilizing large groups," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 1-36, May.
- Carpenter, Jeffrey P., 2004.
"Punishing Free-Riders: How Group Size Affects Mutual Monitoring and the Provision of Public Goods,"
IZA Discussion Papers
1337, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Carpenter, Jeffrey P., 2007. "Punishing free-riders: How group size affects mutual monitoring and the provision of public goods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 31-51, July.
- Jeffrey Carpenter, 2002. "Punishing Free Riders: how group size affects mutual monitoring and the provision of public goods," Middlebury College Working Paper Series 0206, Middlebury College, Department of Economics.
- Henrik Orzen, 2006.
"Counterintuitive Number Effects in Experimental Oligopolies,"
2006-22, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
- Henrik Orzen, 2008. "Counterintuitive number effects in experimental oligopolies," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 390-401, December.
- Henrik Orzen, 2006. "Counterintuitive Number Effects in Experimental Oligopolies," Discussion Papers 2006-22, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
- Ananish Chaudhuri, 2011. "Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: a selective survey of the literature," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 47-83, March.
- Robert Moir, 1998. "A Monte Carlo Analysis of the Fisher Randomization Technique: Reviving Randomization for Experimental Economists," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 87-100, June.
- Oliver Kim & Mark Walker, 1984. "The free rider problem: Experimental evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 3-24, January.
- Joachim Weimann & Jeannette Brosig-Koch & Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Claudia Keser & Christian Stahr, 2012. "Public-good experiments with large groups," FEMM Working Papers 120009, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
- R. Isaac & James Walker & Susan Thomas, 1984. "Divergent evidence on free riding: An experimental examination of possible explanations," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 113-149, January.
- R. M. Isaac & J. M. Walker, 2010.
"Group size effects in public goods provision: The voluntary contribution mechanism,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
310, David K. Levine.
- Isaac, R Mark & Walker, James M, 1988. "Group Size Effects in Public Goods Provision: The Voluntary Contributions Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 103(1), pages 179-99, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:not:notcdx:2013-05. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Suzanne Robey)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.