maarten berg results of a solidarity game experiment

Maarten Berg

Results of a solidarity game experiment

21/11/2011 Results of a solidarity game experiment

Content

• 1. Research questions and concepts• 2. (Experimental) game theory• 3. Design• 4. First results• 5. Phase 2: introducing identity and

social distance


1. Research questions and concepts

Research questions:

1. What are the conditions of solidarity?

2. What is the role of social distance?


1. Research questions and conceptsSolidarity:

- Definition: The performance of voluntary acts that benefit others, without the guarantee of receiving (at least) equal benefits in return

- Solidarity refers to behavior- Solidarity refers to voluntary behavior- Solidarity is not defined in terms of

support for public goods.


2. (Experimental) game theory

What is an experiment?

- Advantages of the experimental method- Control over the circumstances/conditions

of interest- The ability to draw causal conclusions

- Random assignment- Number of subjects

- Disadvantages of the experimental method- Low external validity


2. (Experimental) game theory

- What is a game?- Interactivity

- E.g. The so-called ‘Ultimatum Game’

- Rules of a game: how do ones decisions relate to the decisions of others and chance?- ‘No deception rule’- No social desirable statements


3. Design

Basic design of our ‘solidarity game’:

- Experimental groups consist of four players

- Subjects answer ten quiz questions modelling the productive effort in a real economy

- Two ‘winners’ and two ‘losers’- Two winners distribute 20 credits

(reflecting real money!)


3. Design

• 2*2 design• Performance-based vs random-

based• One shot vs four shots

One shot Four shots

Performance

Condition 1 Condition 3

Random Condition 2 Condition 4

• 2 studies• Study 1: Laboratory experiment:

156 UvA student subjects• Study 2: Field-experiment: 190

subjects from the Dappermarket-area

3. Design

21/11/2011 Results of a solidarity game experiment 9


4. Results of study 1

Number of credits that are voluntarily shared by the winners in round 1(maximum of 20):

Condition 1: 1.87 (N=16)Condition 2: 4.62 (N=24)Condition 3: 4.05 (N=20)Condition 4: 7.28 (N=18)

Conclusion: solidarity is possible



One shot (condition 1 and 2): 3.53Four shots (condition 3 and 4): 5.48p = 0.07

Conclusion: when people are in a long-term, stable relationship with one another, they are more inclined to solidarity



Performance (condition 1 and 3): 3.08 Random (condition 2 and 4): 5.76P= 0.02

Conclusion: When people feel / know that they do not deserve their wealth, they are more inclined to solidarity (or: when they do feel they deserve their wealth, they are less inclined to share).



Solidarity in:

Round 1: 5.48 (Mean of both four shot conditions)Round 2: 3.58 (Mean of both four shot conditions)Round 3: 3.63 (Mean of both four shot conditions)Round 4: 0.74 (Mean of both four shot conditions)

- Strategic considerations?- Dissapointed by lack of solidarity in previous

rounds?



Direct reciprocity: r = +0.326 (n=114), p < 0.001

(Gifts of the winners of round 1 with direct returns in round 2)

Indirect reciprocity: r=+0.423 (n=76, p<0.001)(Cumulative gifts to others with cumulative gifts

from others)

Conclusion: solidarity seems to be returned (to some extent).

• No proof of inequality-aversion• Correlation between gifts from

others in round 4 and cumulative earnings in round 1, 2 en 3 (controlled for being a winner or a loser in round 4): rp = + 0.048 (n.s.)




5. Phase 2

• In phase 2 of the experimental study, people from the Dappermarkt-area in Amsterdam will be used (rather than students)– This is the same neighborhood that is

used in Laurens’ qualitative study


5. Phase 2

• More importantly, social distance is introduced in the design.– The participants know crucial aspects of

the identity of the other people in their group:• Sex• Age• Marital status• Etnicity / cultural background• Number of years of living in the

Dappermarkt-area

• We see substantially more solidarity than in study 1: 8.94 versus 4.53 (aggregated mean)

• P<0.001

5. Results from study 2


• We see less differences between the different conditions

• No greater solidarity in random conditions

• No greater solidarity in four shots conditions

• No proof of inequality-aversion• However, strong proof of

reciprocity



Social distance within the group• We see most solidarity when there are

precisely two cultural groups represented in a group of four players, either in a 2:2 or a 3:1 ratio (Herfindahl-indices of 0.5 / 0.48).

• Cultural composition of the group seems to matter: F(4, 85) = 2.22 (p=0.073)

• Age compostion does not seem to matter



Characteristics of the contributors• Solidarity is positvely correlated with age

of contributor (r= +0.175, p<0.10, n=90).• Indication that autochthones share

somewhat more than allochthones (9.21 versus 8.17, n.s.)

• We further need to analyze the effect of social distance between specific contributors and specific beneficiaries.



• Too pessimistic view of mankind, based on experimental research with student subjects?

• Potential for solidarity rather fixed or context-dependent and variable?

• Is the role of social distance (in terms of age) underestimated or overestimated?

6. Implications and questions


maarten berg results of a solidarity game experiment

Documents

solidarity slide

conditions of solidarity

concepts solidarity

results of study

lack of solidarity

return solidarity

experimental game theory

voluntary behavior solidarity