Introduction of a Punishment Option in the Public Good Game Experiment
To provide a direct method for penalizing free-riders, which was previously only possible indirectly by ceasing contributions, experimenters modified the public good game. They introduced a new option where, after the contribution phase, players could anonymously punish any group member. This action was costly, requiring the punisher to pay $1 to impose a $3 fine on the targeted player.
0
1
Tags
Library Science
Economics
Economy
Introduction to Microeconomics Course
Social Science
Empirical Science
Science
CORE Econ
Ch.4 Strategic interactions and social dilemmas - The Economy 2.0 Microeconomics @ CORE Econ
The Economy 2.0 Microeconomics @ CORE Econ
Related
Individual Incentive to Free-Ride in the Worldwide Public Good Game
Introduction of a Punishment Option in the Public Good Game Experiment
In a single round of an economic experiment, a group has four members. Each member is given $20 and can contribute any amount to a common fund. For every dollar in the fund, each of the four members receives a payout of $0.40. Imagine you are one of the members, and the other three members have contributed a total of $30 to the fund. Analyze your own financial outcome based on two choices: contributing $10 versus contributing $0. Which statement correctly identifies your best strategy for maximizing your personal payoff in this round?
The Role of Information in a Cooperative Game
Analyzing Payoffs in a Cooperative Game
In an economic experiment, four-person groups play a game for ten rounds. In each round, every participant receives $20 and can contribute any amount to a shared fund. For every dollar contributed to the fund, each of the four members (including the contributor) receives a benefit of $0.40. Suppose in one round, the total contribution from all four members to the shared fund is $40. What is the total net financial gain for the group as a whole in this round?
Critiquing an Experimental Design for Studying Cooperation
In an economic experiment, four-person groups play a game. In each round, every participant receives $20 and can contribute any amount to a shared fund. For every dollar contributed to the fund by any player, each of the four members receives a benefit of $0.40. If a single player decides to contribute $1 of their own money to the shared fund, what is the net change in that specific player's personal wealth resulting directly from that $1 contribution?
Calculating Individual Payoff in a Public Good Game
An economic experiment is conducted with four-person groups. In each round, every participant is given $20 and can contribute any amount to a shared fund. For every dollar contributed to the fund, each of the four members (including the contributor) receives a benefit of $0.40. Based on these rules, the course of action that maximizes a single player's personal financial gain in a round is the same course of action that maximizes the total financial gain for the group as a whole.
Modifying an Experimental Design to Test a New Hypothesis
Predicting Behavior in a Multi-Round Game
Key Observed Patterns in the Worldwide Public Good Game
Introduction of a Punishment Option in the Public Good Game Experiment
The Coffee Fund Conundrum
In a four-person group project, three members contribute equally, but the fourth member, Alex, does very little work. The group still receives a good grade. After the project is over, another group member, Ben, spends an hour writing a detailed, confidential email to the professor explaining Alex's lack of contribution. Ben knows this action will not change his own grade or provide any direct personal benefit, but he hopes the professor will penalize Alex. Which principle of behavior does Ben's action best illustrate?
Challenging Rational Self-Interest
An individual's decision to punish a person who has violated a social norm is primarily driven by a calculation that the long-term personal benefits of enforcing the norm will exceed the immediate personal cost of the punishment.
The Office Kitchen Incident
In a shared community garden, there is a clear rule that all members must help with weeding on Saturdays. One member, Dave, consistently skips this duty but still takes a full share of the harvest. Another member, Sarah, observes this. She decides to spend her own money to buy a new lock for the tool shed and changes the combination, texting it only to the members who have been participating. This action costs her money and time, and makes accessing tools slightly more inconvenient for everyone, including herself. Which of the following statements best analyzes Sarah's action in this context?
Match each scenario with the primary behavioral motivation it illustrates.
In a neighborhood with a strict 'no loud parties after 10 PM' rule, one resident repeatedly hosts noisy gatherings. Which of the following reactions from a neighbor best exemplifies the principle that individuals are often willing to incur a personal cost to punish those who violate shared social rules?
The Deceptive Tip Jar
In a collaborative online project, four students are meant to contribute equally to receive the same final grade. One student, Chris, does almost no work. Which of the following actions by another group member, Dana, most clearly demonstrates a willingness to punish a norm violator at a personal cost?
Learn After
Effect of Peer Punishment on Contributions in the Public Good Game Experiment
Using Treatment and Control Groups to Test the Punishment Option in the Public Good Game
Figure 4.14c: Mean Contributions in Worldwide Public Goods Game with Peer Punishment
Analyzing the Decision to Punish
Evaluating a Costly Punishment Decision
In a group experiment, participants are given an initial sum of money and can contribute any amount to a common pool. The total in the pool is multiplied and then distributed equally among all, regardless of their individual contributions. After contributions are revealed, a new rule is introduced: any participant can choose to pay $1 to reduce another participant's earnings by $3. The identity of the person imposing the reduction is kept anonymous. What is the most likely reason the experiment is designed so that imposing a penalty is costly to the person who imposes it?
In a four-person group experiment, participants can contribute to a common project. After contributions are revealed, a rule allows any player to pay $1 to reduce another's earnings by $3. Player A decides to use this option once to penalize Player B for contributing very little. What is the immediate net change in the total earnings of the four-person group as a direct result of this single act of punishment?
The Punisher's Dilemma
In a group economic experiment, individuals can contribute to a common pool. After contributions are revealed, players are given the option to pay a personal cost to reduce the earnings of another player. A key feature of this option is that the identity of the player imposing the penalty is kept secret from the person being penalized. What is the most likely reason for this anonymity in the experimental design?
In a group experiment where individuals can contribute to a common pool, a punishment mechanism is introduced. Any player can pay $1 to reduce another player's earnings by $3. From a purely financial standpoint for the current round, a player who chooses to punish another will see an immediate increase in their own personal earnings.
Analyzing the Rationale for Costly Punishment
In a multi-round group experiment, four participants each receive an endowment and can contribute any portion of it to a common project. The total amount in the project is multiplied and distributed equally among all four members, regardless of their individual contributions. After contributions are revealed each round, participants have the option to anonymously pay $1 to reduce another participant's earnings by $3.
Consider the following contributions in the first round:
- Player 1: $18
- Player 2: $15
- Player 3: $5
- Player 4: $0
From the perspective of Player 1, which statement best analyzes the decision to punish another player in this scenario?
In a multi-round group experiment, participants can contribute to a common pool. After each round, contributions are revealed, and players have the option to anonymously pay $1 to reduce another player's earnings by $3. In the first round, Player A contributes a high amount, while Player B contributes nothing. Player A then chooses to pay $1 to reduce Player B's earnings by $3. Which of the following best explains Player A's action as a strategic decision within the context of the multi-round game?
In a four-person group experiment, participants can contribute to a common project. After contributions are revealed, a rule allows any player to pay $1 to reduce another's earnings by $3. Player A decides to use this option once to penalize Player B for contributing very little. What is the immediate net change in the total earnings of the four-person group as a direct result of this single act of punishment?