Issue

Vol 37 No 3 (2022): September

Date Log

Submitted
May 9, 2022
Accepted
Aug 29, 2022
Published
Sep 27, 2022

Copyright

Upon acceptance of an article, authors transfer copyright to the JIEB as part of a journal publishing agreement, but authors still have the right to share their article for personal use, internal institutional use, and for any use permitted under the CC BY-SA license

Open Access

Articles are freely available to the public without any subscription with permitted reuse. For open access articles, permitted third party (re)use is defined by the following Creative Commons user licenses: Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-SA).

Does the Costless Identification of Contributors Affect the Intuitiveness of Prosocial Behavior?

https://doi.org/10.22146/jieb.v37i3.4523
Rimawan Pradiptyo
rimawan@ugm.ac.id
Putu Sanjiwacika Wibisana
Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universitas Gadjah Mada

Corresponding Author(s) : Rimawan Pradiptyo

rimawan@ugm.ac.id

Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business, Vol 37 No 3 (2022): September

Abstract

Introduction/ Main Objectives: This study investigates whether relaxing the assumption of the non-anonymity of participants in an experiment of a finitely repeated public-good game with randomly matched players affects the intuitiveness of prosocial behavior. Background Problems: Various studies show that, in general, participants of social dilemma game experiments tend to be intuitive in choosing prosocial behaviour, whereas non-cooperative behavior tends to be slow. Other studies show that experiments which induced the non-anonymity of participants promote prosocial behavior, however, these studies did not impose non-anonymity on the participants. Novelty: This study aims to fill the literature gap on whether introducing non-anonymity of participants in a social dilemma game experiment may affect the intuitiveness of prosocial behavior. Research Methods: This study used a laboratory experiment of finitely repeated public-good games with randomly matched players in each stage. The main difference between the control and the treatment groups lay in the anonymity of participants in the interaction, where participants in treatment group are exposed to the photo of their opponent. Finding/Results: The results show that relaxing the anonymity setting improved the participants’ contributions to the public-good game; however, their prosocial behavior became less intuitive than non-cooperative behavior. Conclusion: This paper demonstrated an attempt to fill the gap in the literature between the intuitiveness of prosocial behaviour and the role of identity in prosocial behavior.

Keywords

public-good game randomly assigned players non-anonymity participants median response time laboratory experiment
Pradiptyo, R., & Wibisana, P. S. (2022). Does the Costless Identification of Contributors Affect the Intuitiveness of Prosocial Behavior?. Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business, 37(3), 287-310. https://doi.org/10.22146/jieb.v37i3.4523
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
References
  1. Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and Identity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115 (3): 715-753.
  2. Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2002). Identity and Schooling: Some Lessons for the Economics of Education, Journal of Economic Literature, 40(6):1167-1201.
  3. Akerlof, G. A., &Kranton, R. E. (2005). Identity and Economics of Organizations, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1):9-32.
  4. Andreoni, J., & Petrie, R. (2004). Public Goods Experiments without Confidentiality: a Glimpse into Fund-Raising. Journal of Public Economics, 88(7): 1605-1623.
  5. Belloc, M., Bilancini, E., Boncinelli, L., & D’Alessandro, S. (2019). Intuition and Deliberation in the Stag Hunt Game, Nature, 9:14833.
  6. Bohnet, I., & Frey, B.S. (1999). The Sound of Silence in Prisoners' Dilemma and Dictator Games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 38(1): 43-57.
  7. Brañas-Garza, P., Meloso, D., & Miller, L. (2017). Strategic Risk and Response Time Across Games, International Journal Game Theory, 46: 511-523.
  8. Brozyna, C., Guilfoos, T., & Atlas, S. (2018). Slow and Deliberate Cooperation in the Commons, Nature Sustainability, 1:184-189.
  9. Bugental, D. B. (2000). Acquisition of the Algorithms of Social Life: a Domain-Based Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126(2): 187-219.
  10. Cappelen, A.W., Nielsen, U.H., Tungodden, B., Tyran, J-R., & Wengstrom, E. (2016). Fairness is Intuitive, Journal of Experimental Economics, 19: 727-740.
  11. Carlen, D. M. (2014). Cooperation in a Repeated Public Goods Game with a Probabilistic Endpoint, College of William and Mary Undergraduate Honors Theses, paper 34.
  12. Charness, G., Rigotti, L., & Rustichini, A. (2007). Individual Behavior and Group Membership. The American Economic Review, 97(4): 1340-1352.
  13. Chaudhuri, A. (2011). Sustaining Cooperation in Laboratory Public Goods Experiments: a Selective Survey of the Literature. Experimental Economics, 14(1): 47-83.
  14. Chen, F., & Krajbich, I. (2018). Biased Sequential Sampling Underlies the Effects of Time Pressure and Delay in Social Decisio Making, Nature Communitation, 9: 3557.
  15. Chen, R., & Chen, Y. (2011). The Potential of Social Identity for Equilibrium Selection. The American Economic Review, 101(6): 2562-2589.
  16. Chen, Y., & Li, S. X. (2009). Group Identity and Social Preferences. The American Economic Review, 99(1): 431-457.
  17. Citera, M., Beauregard, R., & Mitsuya, T. (2005). An Experimental Study of Credi-bility in E‐Negotiations. Psychology and Marketing, 22(2):163-179.
  18. Crosetto, P., &Güth, W. (2021). What Are You Calling Intuitive? Subject Heterogeniety as a Driver of Response Times in an Impunity Game, Journal of Economic Psichology, 87:102419, Brief Report.
  19. Croson, R., Marks, M., & Snyder, J. (2008). Groups Work for Women: Gender and Group Identity in Social Dilemmas. Negotiation Journal, 24(4): 411-427.
  20. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2005). Managing Diversity by Creating Team Identity. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 58(3): 371-392.
  21. Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3): 159-181.
  22. Fehr, E., & Gintis, H. (2007). Human Motivation and Social Cooperation: Experimental and Analytical Foundations. Annu. Rev. Sociology., 33: 43-64.
  23. Fehr, E., and Schmidt, K.M. (2006). The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism - Experimental Evidence and New Theories", Handbook on the Economics of Giving, Reciprocity and Altruism, Vol. 1, 615-691ed.by. Serge-Christophe Kolm and Jean Mercier Ythier, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  24. Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some Consequences of De-Individuation in a Group. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47(2S): 382-.
  25. Fiddick, L., & Cummins, D. (2007). Are Perceptions of Fairness Relationship-Specific? The Case of Noblesse Oblige. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(1): 16-31.
  26. Fischbacher, U., & Gächter, S. (2010). Social Preferences, Beliefs, and the Dynamics of Free Riding in Public Goods Experiments, The American Economic Review, 100(1): 541-556.
  27. Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of Social Life: The Four Elementary Forms of Human Relations: Communal Sharing, Authority Ranking, Equality Matching, Market Pricing. Free Press.
  28. Fromell, H., Nosenzo, D., & Owens, T. (2020). Altruism, Fast and Slow? Evidence from a Meta-Analysis and a New Experiment, Experimental Economics, 23:979-1001.
  29. Gächter, S., Renner, E., & Sefton, M. (2008). The Long-Run Benefits of Punishment, Science, 322: 5907-1510.
  30. Galloti, R., & Grujic, J. (2019). A Quantitative Description of the Transition between Intuitive Altruism and Rational Deliberation in Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma Experiments, Nature Research, Scientific Reports, 9:17406
  31. Goette, L., Huffman, D., & Meier, S. (2006). The Impact of Group Membership on Cooperation and Norm Enforcement: Evidence Using Random Assignment to Real Social Groups, Economic Consequences of Social Identity, 96: 212-216.
  32. Ghuzini, D. (2022). Mitigating COVID-19 in Indonesia: The Roles of Local Government, in Ing, L.Y., and Basri, M.C., (eds), 2022, COVID-19 in Indonesia; Impacts on the Economy and Ways to Recovery, Routledge-ERIA Studies in Development Economics, Routledge.
  33. Isler, O., Gatcher, S., Maule, A.J. & Starmer, C. (2021), Contextualized Strong Reciprocity Explains Selfless Cooperation Despite Selfish Intuitions and Weak Social Heuristics, Nature, Scientific Report, 11:13868.
  34. Kirchler, M., Andersson, D., Bonn, C., Johannesson, M., Sorensen, E.O., Stefan, M., Tinhog, G., & Västfjäll, D. (2017). The Effect of Fast and Slow Decisions on Risk Taking, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 54: 37-59.
  35. Kranton, R.E. (2016). Identity Economics 2016: Where Do Social Distinctions and Norms Come From? The American Economic Review, 106 (5): 405-409
  36. Kreitmair, U.W. (2015). Voluntary Disclosure of Contributions: An Experimental Study on Nonmandatory Approaches for Improving Public Good Provision, Ecology and Society, 20(4):33.
  37. Kvarven, A., Strömland, E., Wollbrant, C., Andersson, D., Johanneson, M., Tinghog, G., Vastfjall, D., and Myrseth, K.O.R. (2020), The Intuitive Cooperation Hypo-thesis Revisited: A Meta-Analytic Examina¬tion of Effect Size and Between-Study Heterogeneity, Journal of Economic Science Association, 6: 26-42.
  38. Lankau, M., Bicskei, M., and Bizer, K. (2012). Cooperation Preferences in the Provision of Public Goods: an Experimental Study on the Effects of Social Identity, University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 148, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
  39. Lohse, J., Goeschl, T., & Diederich, J.H. (2017). Giving is a Question of Time: Response Times and Contributions to an Environmental Public Good, Environmental Resource Economics, 67:455-477.
  40. Lotito, G., Migheli, M., & Ortona, G. (2013). Is Cooperation Instinctive? Evidence from the Response Times in a Public Goods Game, Journal of Bioeconomics, 15: 123–133.
  41. Merkel, A.L., & Lohse, J. (2019). Is Fairness Intuitive? An Experiment Accounting for Subjective Utility Differences Under Time Pressure, Experimental Economics, 22:24-50.
  42. Morewedge, C.K., & Giblin, C. E. (2015). Explanations of the Endowment Effect: an Integrative Review, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, June 2015, Vol. 19, No. 6, 339-349.
  43. Nielsen, U. H., Tyran, J. R., & Wengstr ̈om, E. (2014). Second Thoughts on Free Riding, Economics Letters, 122:136–139.
  44. Nockur, L., & Pfatthericher, S. (2020). Intuitive Decision-Making Promotes Rewarding Prosocial Others Independent of the Personality Trait Honesty-Humility, Nature, Scientific Report, 10:18579.
  45. Nugroho, Y., & Siwage, D. N. (2020). COVID-19's Impact on Micro, Small, & Medium Enterprises and Tourism in Indonesia, ISEAS, issue 2020, No. 124, 1-11.
  46. Piovesan, M., & Wengström, E. (2009). Fast or Fair? A Study of Response Times, Economics Letters, 105: 193–196.
  47. Pradiptyo, R., & Wigita, P. (2021). Developing an Online-Based Social Capital during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case of SONJO (SambatanJogja), in Resosudarmo, B. P., Mulyaningsih, T., Priyarsono, D.S., Pratomo, D., and Yusuf, A.A., (Eds), Regional Perspective of COVID-19 in Indonesia, IRSA Book Series on Regional Development No. 19, IRSA Press.
  48. Rand, D. G., Greene, J. D., & Nowak, M. A. (2012). Spontaneous Giving and Calculated Greed, Nature, 489: 427–430.
  49. Rand. D.G., Peysakhovich, A., Kraft-Todd, G.T., Newman, G.E., Wurzbacher, O., Nowak, M.A., & Greene J.D. (2013). Social Heuristics Shape Intuitive Cooperation, Nature Communication, 5:3677.
  50. Rand, D.G., & Kraft-Todd, G.T. (2014). Reflection Does Not Undermine Self-Interested Prosociality, Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8: 1-7.
  51. Rege, M., & Telle, K. (2004).The Impact of Social Approval and Framing on Cooperation in Public Good Situations. Journal of Public Economics, 88(7): 1625-1644.
  52. Rockmann, K. W., & Northcraft, G. B. (2008). To Be or Not To Be Trusted: The Influence of Media Richness on Defection and Deception. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(2): 106-122.
  53. Roth, A.E., & Murninghan, J.K. (1982). The Role of Information in Bargaining: an Experimental Study, Econometrica, 50(5):1123-1142.
  54. Rubinstein, A. (2007). Instinctive and Cognitive Reasoning: A Study of Response Times, The Economic Journal, 117: 1243–1259.
  55. Rubinstein, A. (2016). A Typology of Players, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(2): 859-890.
  56. Samek, A., & Sheremeta, R.M. (2016). When Identifying Contributors is Costly: An Experiment on Public Goods, Southern Economic Journal, 82(3):801-808.
  57. Swaab, R. I., Galinsky, A. D., Medvec, V., & Diermeier, D. A. (2012). The Communica¬tion Orientation Model Explaining the Diverse Effects of Sight, Sound, and Syn¬chronicity on Negotiation and Group Deci¬sion-Making Outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1): 25-53.
  58. Tingh ̈og, G., Andersson, D., Bonn, C., B ̈ottiger, H., Josephson, C., Lundgren, G., V ̈astfj ̈all, D., Kirchler, M., & Johannesson, M. (2013). Intuition and Cooperation Reconsidered, Nature, 498: E1–E2.15
  59. Walther, J.B. (1992). Interpersonal Effect in Computer-Mediated Interaction: A Relational Perspective, Communication Research, 19(1):52-90.
  60. Walther, J.B. (1995). Rational Aspect of Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Observation Over Time, Organization Science, 6(2):186-203.
  61. Yamagishi, T., Matsumoto, Y., Kiyonari, T., Takagishi, H., Li, Yang., Kanai, R., & Sakagami, M. (2017). Response Time in Economic Games Reflects Different Types of Decision Conflict for Prosocial and Proself Individuals, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114: 6394-6399.
  62. van Zant, A. B., & Kray, L. J. (2014). “I Can't Lie to Your Face”: Minimal Face-to-Face Interaction Promotes Honesty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55: 234-238.
Read More
Author biographies is not available.
Download this PDF file
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 537 Download : 379