IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/6rn97.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Revisiting ‘Growth and Inequality in Public Good Provision’—Reproducing and Generalizing Through Inconvenient Online Experimentation

Author

Listed:
  • Roggenkamp, Hauke C.

    (Univerisity of St. Gallen)

Abstract

I revisit the dynamic public goods game developed by Gächter et al. (2017) to study cooperation under dynamic interdependencies. Collecting data from both a convenient (students) and an inconvenient (general population) sample, I not only reproduce some of the authors' original observations but also test their novel game's generalizability. Appending a charitable dictator game, I find no correlations between behavior in the charitable context and the dynamic game. This applies to students and the general population sample alike. Because the study of inexperienced general population samples raises methodological challenges, such as fatigue and dropouts, this research approaches them. In doing so, I provide simple solutions to run reliable interactive experiments online. Furthermore, this article showcases the use of literate programming and version control which I argue are convenient tools to make pre-registrations more credible and flexible.

Suggested Citation

  • Roggenkamp, Hauke C., 2024. "Revisiting ‘Growth and Inequality in Public Good Provision’—Reproducing and Generalizing Through Inconvenient Online Experimentation," OSF Preprints 6rn97, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:6rn97
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/6rn97
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/65c35be69b32ca0b3c97f296/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/6rn97?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. Garret Christensen & Edward Miguel, 2018. "Transparency, Reproducibility, and the Credibility of Economics Research," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(3), pages 920-980, September.
    2. Goeschl, Timo & Kettner, Sara Elisa & Lohse, Johannes & Schwieren, Christiane, 2020. "How much can we learn about voluntary climate action from behavior in public goods games?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    3. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    4. Abel Brodeur & Nikolai Cook & Anthony Heyes, 2020. "Methods Matter: p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Causal Analysis in Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(11), pages 3634-3660, November.
    5. Benjamin A. Olken, 2015. "Promises and Perils of Pre-analysis Plans," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 29(3), pages 61-80, Summer.
    6. Abel Brodeur & Mathias Lé & Marc Sangnier & Yanos Zylberberg, 2016. "Star Wars: The Empirics Strike Back," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 1-32, January.
    7. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    8. Benndorf, Volker & Moellers, Claudia & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2017. "Experienced vs. inexperienced participants in the lab: Do they behave differently?," DICE Discussion Papers 251, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    9. Neeraja Gupta & Luca Rigotti & Alistair Wilson, 2021. "The Experimenters' Dilemma: Inferential Preferences over Populations," Papers 2107.05064, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2021.
    10. Ofra Amir & David G Rand & Ya'akov Kobi Gal, 2012. "Economic Games on the Internet: The Effect of $1 Stakes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-4, February.
    11. Anderhub, Vital & Muller, Rudolf & Schmidt, Carsten, 2001. "Design and evaluation of an economic experiment via the Internet," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 227-247, October.
    12. Sam Parsons & Flávio Azevedo & Mahmoud M. Elsherif & Samuel Guay & Owen N. Shahim & Gisela H. Govaart & Emma Norris & Aoife O’Mahony & Adam J. Parker & Ana Todorovic & Charlotte R. Pennington & Elias , 2022. "A community-sourced glossary of open scholarship terms," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(3), pages 312-318, March.
    13. Marco Battaglini & Salvatore Nunnari & Thomas R. Palfrey, 2016. "The Dynamic Free Rider Problem: A Laboratory Study," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 268-308, November.
    14. Daniel L. Chen & Martin Schonger & Chris Wickens, 2016. "oTree - An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Post-Print hal-04315125, HAL.
    15. Ankel-Peters, Jörg & Fiala, Nathan & Neubauer, Florian, 2023. "Do economists replicate?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 219-232.
    16. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    17. Irene Maria Buso & Daniela Di Cagno & Lorenzo Ferrari & Vittorio Larocca & Luisa Lorè & Francesca Marazzi & Luca Panaccione & Lorenzo Spadoni, 2021. "Lab-like findings from online experiments," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 184-193, December.
    18. Jennifer Zelmer, 2003. "Linear Public Goods Experiments: A Meta-Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(3), pages 299-310, November.
    19. Lionel Page & Charles N. Noussair & Robert Slonim, 2021. "The replication crisis, the rise of new research practices and what it means for experimental economics," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 210-225, December.
    20. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 2007. "Viewpoint: Replication in economics," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 40(3), pages 715-733, August.
    21. Calzolari, Giacomo & Casari, Marco & Ghidoni, Riccardo, 2018. "Carbon is forever: A climate change experiment on cooperation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 169-184.
    22. Jeffrey Carpenter & Cristina Connolly & Caitlin Myers, 2008. "Altruistic behavior in a representative dictator experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 282-298, September.
    23. Nathan J. Cook & Tara Grillos & Krister P. Andersson, 2019. "Gender quotas increase the equality and effectiveness of climate policy interventions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(4), pages 330-334, April.
    24. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 1996. "Altruism in Anonymous Dictator Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 181-191, October.
    25. 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.
    26. Julian Vicens & Nereida Bueno-Guerra & Mario Gutiérrez-Roig & Carlos Gracia-Lázaro & Jesús Gómez-Gardeñes & Josep Perelló & Angel Sánchez & Yamir Moreno & Jordi Duch, 2018. "Resource heterogeneity leads to unjust effort distribution in climate change mitigation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, October.
    27. 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.
    28. Gächter, Simon & Mengel, Friederike & Tsakas, Elias & Vostroknutov, Alexander, 2017. "Growth and inequality in public good provision," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 1-13.
    29. Brick, Kerri & Visser, Martine, 2015. "What is fair? An experimental guide to climate negotiations," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 79-95.
    30. Volker Benndorf & Claudia Moellers & Hans-Theo Normann, 2017. "Experienced vs. inexperienced participants in the lab: do they behave differently?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(1), pages 12-25, July.
    31. Erik Snowberg & Leeat Yariv, 2021. "Testing the Waters: Behavior across Participant Pools," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(2), pages 687-719, February.
    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. Chapkovski, Philipp, 2023. "Conducting interactive experiments on Toloka," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    2. Dreber, Anna & Johannesson, Magnus, 2023. "A framework for evaluating reproducibility and replicability in economics," I4R Discussion Paper Series 38, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    3. Palan, Stefan & Schitter, Christian, 2018. "Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 22-27.
    4. Chapkovski, Philipp, 2022. "Interactive Experiments in Toloka," EconStor Preprints 249771, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    5. 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.
    6. Goeschl, Timo & Kettner, Sara Elisa & Lohse, Johannes & Schwieren, Christiane, 2020. "How much can we learn about voluntary climate action from behavior in public goods games?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    7. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    8. Pevnitskaya, Svetlana & Ryvkin, Dmitry, 2022. "The effect of access to clean technology on pollution reduction: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 117-141.
    9. 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).
    10. Dominika Ehrenbergerova & Josef Bajzik & Tomas Havranek, 2023. "When Does Monetary Policy Sway House Prices? A Meta-Analysis," IMF Economic Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Monetary Fund, vol. 71(2), pages 538-573, June.
    11. Fišar, Miloš & Greiner, Ben & Huber, Christoph & Katok, Elena & Ozkes, Ali & Management Science Reproducibility Collaboration, 2023. "Reproducibility in Management Science," Department for Strategy and Innovation Working Paper Series 03/2023, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    12. Brodeur, Abel & Cook, Nikolai & Hartley, Jonathan & Heyes, Anthony, 2022. "Do Pre-Registration and Pre-analysis Plans Reduce p-Hacking and Publication Bias?," MetaArXiv uxf39, Center for Open Science.
    13. Eugenio Levi & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2023. "Absolute vs. relative poverty and wealth: Cooperation in the presence of between-group inequality," MUNI ECON Working Papers 2023-09, Masaryk University.
    14. Guillaume Coqueret, 2023. "Forking paths in financial economics," Papers 2401.08606, arXiv.org.
    15. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    16. Sarah A. Janzen & Jeffrey D. Michler, 2021. "Ulysses' pact or Ulysses' raft: Using pre‐analysis plans in experimental and nonexperimental research," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1286-1304, December.
    17. Ghidoni, Riccardo & Cleave, Blair L. & Suetens, Sigrid, 2019. "Perfect and imperfect strangers in social dilemmas," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 148-159.
    18. Ankel-Peters, Jörg & Fiala, Nathan & Neubauer, Florian, 2023. "Do economists replicate?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 219-232.
    19. Chapkovski, Philipp, 2022. "Interactive experiments in Toloka," MPRA Paper 111980, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Thibaut Arpinon & Romain Espinosa, 2023. "A practical guide to Registered Reports for economists," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(1), pages 90-122, June.

    More about this item

    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:osf:osfxxx:6rn97. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.