Abstract

Cooperation in a social dilemma is noble but risky because one is not sheltered against selfish individuals. This “social uncertainty” is essentially captured in the linear public good game, where it is socially optimal to contribute everything to the public good, while it is privately optimal to keep everything for oneself. Many real-world social dilemmas have an additional source of “strategic uncertainty”, as socially and privately optimal strategies tend to depend on actions of others. Here, we compare the determinants of cooperation in a linear public good game and a threshold game, where individuals are challenged to guess the contributions of the partners to determine an appropriate investment that aligns with private and collective interest. We combine elicited risk preferences and cooperative attitudes with information from a survey on social capital and demographics to analyse what explains cooperation. Our experiments are carried out with farmers in Cambodia who are exposed to various social dilemmas on a daily basis. We find that risk and social capital explain cooperation in the linear public good game, but not in the threshold game. These findings call for a more careful examination of real world social dilemmas that typically comprise coordination and cooperation elements.

Highlights

  • Cooperation in social dilemma situations has been studied exten­ sively

  • Welfare levels Comparing the individual payoffs per game, we find that the median payoff is considerably lower in the linear public good game than in the threshold public good game

  • We find that the correlation between the threshold public good and the linear public good game is stronger for individuals with low social capital (Fig. A.2)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Cooperation in social dilemma situations has been studied exten­ sively. The linear public good game is the canonical model to analyse cooperative behaviour in a situation where each individual is torn be­ tween personal gains and collective welfare. While it is individually optimal to contribute nothing to the public good regardless of what other players are doing, it is socially optimal to contribute everything (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003; Willinger & Ziegelmeyer, 1999). The social optimum is reached if all players contribute their full endowment to the public good. The most frequently observed behaviour is neither free riding nor full cooperation but rather contributions around 40-50% of the endowment (Ledyard, 1995; Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003; Burton-Chellew & West, 2013). Fischbacher, Gachter, and Fehr (2001) established that individuals can be classified according to their contri­ bution strategies, such as free riding, conditional cooperation, or un­ conditional cooperation. Individuals try to avoid being the “sucker” (Kerr, 1983) who contributes while others take a free ride

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call