Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Theory and Decision 4/2016

11.05.2016

Who are the voluntary leaders? Experimental evidence from a sequential contribution game

verfasst von: Raphaële Préget, Phu Nguyen-Van, Marc Willinger

Erschienen in: Theory and Decision | Ausgabe 4/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We rely on the methodology of Fischbacher et al. (Econ Lett 71(3):397–404, 2001) in order to identify subjects’ behavioral types. We then link the likelihood to act as a leader in a repeated public goods game to the elicited behavioral types. The leader in a group is defined as the subject who voluntarily decides in the first place about his contribution. The leader’s contribution is then reported publicly to the remaining group members who take their contribution decisions simultaneously. Our main findings are that leaders emerge in almost all rounds and that subjects who are identified as conditional cooperators are more likely to act as leaders than other types, e.g., free-riders or triangle-contributors. We also find that voluntary leaders, irrespective of their behavioral type, contribute always more than followers. However, the presence of leadership does not prevent the decay that is commonly observed in linear public goods experiments.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
Voluntary leadership was also studied by Potters et al. (2005), but in a situation of asymmetric information where the value of the MPCR was private information of the potential leader. In Dannenberg (2015) the leader was randomly selected and in one of the treatments he had the choice to lead by example (making a public binding contribution) to lead by words (making a public non-binding announcement of his contribution) or not to lead.
 
2
The first stage eliminated candidates to become a leader were allowed to modify their initially proposed contribution in stage 2.
 
3
There is some analogy between the categorization of Gächter et al. (2012) in terms of Non-Cooperators, Strong Cooperators and Weak Cooperators and the one of Fischbacher et al. (2001) which identifies CC, FR and TC types. Non-Cooperators correspond to FRs, Strong Cooperators to CC types, and Weak Cooperators to TCs.
 
4
The contribution schedule of an FR type contains ‘0’ in all 21 entries. A CC type has an increasing schedule with a Spearman’s \(\rho > 0\) at p value \({<}0.01\). A TC type has a ‘hump-shaped’ contribution schedule, first increasing up to a certain level (around 10), and decreasing afterwards. All other patterns fall in the “other” category, including unconditional positive contributions.
 
5
It was therefore no longer possible for any other group member to become a leader in that round. A limitation of this procedure is that among those who were willing to lead, the fast ones were favored over the slower ones. We, however, checked that this characteristic is not related to the type of the subject.
 
6
The show up fee is equal to 3€ or 8€ depending on whether the participant is in the location where the experiment took place or was coming from outside.
 
7
Over the ten groups, the first leadership failure occurred as late as round 8. Two failures occurred in round 14, one failure in each of the rounds 16, 17 and 18, and three failures in the final round.
 
8
The number of degrees of freedom is equal to \((r-1)(k-1)\) where r is the number of samples to compare and k the number of types.
 
9
The binomial test leads to the same conclusion.
 
10
We estimated the same model by adding the contributions of other subjects in the previous period in \(\mathbf{z}_{it}\). However, this variable was not significant and did not affect the overall results presented above.
 
11
According to a likelihood ratio test, our dynamic specification outperforms the static model. Under the null hypothesis corresponding to the static model, \(H_0 : \rho =\alpha _0 =\alpha _1 = \varvec{\alpha }_\mathbf{2} =0\), the test statistic follows a \(\chi ^{2}\) distribution with 22 degrees of freedom. The computed statistic is 93.868 and the corresponding p value almost 0, leading to the rejection of the static model in favor of our dynamic specification.
 
12
Table 2 does not report the estimates for \(\varvec{\alpha }_\mathbf{2}\) associated to \(\mathbf{z}_i\), because \(\mathbf{z}_i\) is the set of auxiliary regressors needed in modeling the distribution of individual effects conditional on the initial choice \(y_{i1}\) (following Wooldridge 2005). They are only of statistical interest (available from the authors upon request).
 
13
In order to control for a possible group composition effect for this result, we included a variable corresponding to the number of CC in the group (1, 2 or 3). Because this variable was insignificant, we decided to not report the results of the corresponding regression. We also checked that the variable corresponding to the number of FR in the group was not significant. We also estimated a model including group dummies, but it did not converge (the likelihood function was not concave). Overall, the lack of significance of group dummies can be due to our small sample size.
 
14
As pointed out by one of the reviewers, the multicollinearity between the variable “Unconditional contribution” and the subjects’ types may explain the surprising result that the unconditional contribution is negatively related to willingness to lead.
 
15
We do not include contributions of other players in the previous round in the set of explanatory variables because of multicollinearity.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., & Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008). Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5–6), 1047–1060.CrossRef Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., & Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008). Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: Evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5–6), 1047–1060.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Arbak, E., & Villeval, M.-C. (2013). Voluntary leadership: Motivation and influence. Social Choice and Welfare, 40, 635–662.CrossRef Arbak, E., & Villeval, M.-C. (2013). Voluntary leadership: Motivation and influence. Social Choice and Welfare, 40, 635–662.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Dannenberg, A. (2015). Leading by example versus leading by words in voluntary contribution experiments. Social Choice and Welfare, 44, 71–85.CrossRef Dannenberg, A. (2015). Leading by example versus leading by words in voluntary contribution experiments. Social Choice and Welfare, 44, 71–85.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Drouvelis, M., & Nosenzo, D. (2013). Group identity and leading-by-example. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 414–425.CrossRef Drouvelis, M., & Nosenzo, D. (2013). Group identity and leading-by-example. Journal of Economic Psychology, 39, 414–425.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Fischbacher, U., & Gächter, S. (2010). Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public good experiments. American Economic Review, 100, 541–556.CrossRef Fischbacher, U., & Gächter, S. (2010). Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public good experiments. American Economic Review, 100, 541–556.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 71(3), 397–404.CrossRef Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001). Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Economics Letters, 71(3), 397–404.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2004). Social comparisons and pro-social behavior. Testing ’conditional cooperation’ in a field experiment. American Economic Review, 94(5), 1717–1722.CrossRef Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2004). Social comparisons and pro-social behavior. Testing ’conditional cooperation’ in a field experiment. American Economic Review, 94(5), 1717–1722.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gächter, S., & Renner, E. (2003). Leading by example in the presence of free rider incentives. Paper presented at a Conference on Leadership, March 2003, Lyon. Gächter, S., & Renner, E. (2003). Leading by example in the presence of free rider incentives. Paper presented at a Conference on Leadership, March 2003, Lyon.
Zurück zum Zitat Gächter, S., & Renner, E. (2007). The role of leadership and beliefs in the voluntary provision of public goods. Mimeo: University of Nottingham. Gächter, S., & Renner, E. (2007). The role of leadership and beliefs in the voluntary provision of public goods. Mimeo: University of Nottingham.
Zurück zum Zitat Gächter, S., Nosenzo, D., Renner, E., & Sefton, M. (2010). Sequential versus simultaneous contributions to public goods: Experimental evidence. Journal of Public Economics, 94(7–8), 515–522.CrossRef Gächter, S., Nosenzo, D., Renner, E., & Sefton, M. (2010). Sequential versus simultaneous contributions to public goods: Experimental evidence. Journal of Public Economics, 94(7–8), 515–522.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gächter, S., Nosenzo, D., Renner, E., & Sefton, M. (2012). Who makes a good leader? Cooperativeness, optimism and leading-by-example. Economic Inquiry, 50(4), 953–967.CrossRef Gächter, S., Nosenzo, D., Renner, E., & Sefton, M. (2012). Who makes a good leader? Cooperativeness, optimism and leading-by-example. Economic Inquiry, 50(4), 953–967.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Greiner, B. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(1), 114–125.CrossRef Greiner, B. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(1), 114–125.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Güth, W., Levati, M. V., Sutter, M., & van der Heijden, E. (2007). Leading by example with and without exclusion power in voluntary contribution experiments. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5–6), 1023–1042.CrossRef Güth, W., Levati, M. V., Sutter, M., & van der Heijden, E. (2007). Leading by example with and without exclusion power in voluntary contribution experiments. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5–6), 1023–1042.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Haigner, S. D., & Wakolbinger, F. (2010). To lead or not to lead. Economics Letters, 108(1), 93–95.CrossRef Haigner, S. D., & Wakolbinger, F. (2010). To lead or not to lead. Economics Letters, 108(1), 93–95.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Keser, C., & van Winden, F. (2000). Conditional cooperation and voluntary contributions to public goods. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 102(1), 23–39.CrossRef Keser, C., & van Winden, F. (2000). Conditional cooperation and voluntary contributions to public goods. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 102(1), 23–39.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kocher, M. G., Cherry, T., Kroll, S., Netzer, R. J., & Sutter, M. (2008). Conditional cooperation on three continents. Economics Letters, 101, 175–178.CrossRef Kocher, M. G., Cherry, T., Kroll, S., Netzer, R. J., & Sutter, M. (2008). Conditional cooperation on three continents. Economics Letters, 101, 175–178.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kumru, C., & Vesterlund, L. (2010). The effect of status on charitable giving. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 12(4), 709–735.CrossRef Kumru, C., & Vesterlund, L. (2010). The effect of status on charitable giving. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 12(4), 709–735.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Levati, M. V., Sutter, M., & van der Heijden, E. (2007). Leading by example in a public goods experiment with heterogeneity and incomplete information. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(5), 793–818.CrossRef Levati, M. V., Sutter, M., & van der Heijden, E. (2007). Leading by example in a public goods experiment with heterogeneity and incomplete information. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(5), 793–818.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Martin, R., & Randal, J. (2008). How is donation behaviour affected by the donations of others? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 67(1), 228–238.CrossRef Martin, R., & Randal, J. (2008). How is donation behaviour affected by the donations of others? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 67(1), 228–238.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Masclet, D., Willinger, M., & Figuières, C. (2012). Vanishing leadership and declining reciprocity in a sequential contribution experiment. Economic Inquiry, 50(3), 567–584.CrossRef Masclet, D., Willinger, M., & Figuières, C. (2012). Vanishing leadership and declining reciprocity in a sequential contribution experiment. Economic Inquiry, 50(3), 567–584.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Moxnes, E., & van der Heijden, E. (2003). The effect of leadership in a public bad experiment. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(6), 773–795.CrossRef Moxnes, E., & van der Heijden, E. (2003). The effect of leadership in a public bad experiment. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 47(6), 773–795.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Neugebauer, T., Perote, J., Schmidt, U., & Loos, M. (2009). Selfish biased conditional cooperation: On the decline of cooperation in repeated public goods experiments. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(1), 52–60.CrossRef Neugebauer, T., Perote, J., Schmidt, U., & Loos, M. (2009). Selfish biased conditional cooperation: On the decline of cooperation in repeated public goods experiments. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(1), 52–60.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Pogrebna, G., Krantz, D. H., Schade, C., & Keser, C. (2011). Words versus actions as a means to influence cooperation in social dilemma situations. Theory and Decision, 71(4), 473–502.CrossRef Pogrebna, G., Krantz, D. H., Schade, C., & Keser, C. (2011). Words versus actions as a means to influence cooperation in social dilemma situations. Theory and Decision, 71(4), 473–502.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Potters, J., Sefton, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2005). After you—Endogenous sequencing in voluntary contribution games. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 1399–1419.CrossRef Potters, J., Sefton, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2005). After you—Endogenous sequencing in voluntary contribution games. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 1399–1419.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Potters, J., Sefton, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Leading-by-example and signaling in voluntary contribution games: An experimental study. Economic Theory, 33(1), 169–182.CrossRef Potters, J., Sefton, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Leading-by-example and signaling in voluntary contribution games: An experimental study. Economic Theory, 33(1), 169–182.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Rivas, M. F., & Sutter, M. (2011). The benefits of voluntary leadership in experimental public goods games. Economics Letters, 112(2), 176–178.CrossRef Rivas, M. F., & Sutter, M. (2011). The benefits of voluntary leadership in experimental public goods games. Economics Letters, 112(2), 176–178.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Shang, J., & Croson, R. (2009). A field experiment in charitable contribution: The impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. The Economic Journal, 119, 1422–1439.CrossRef Shang, J., & Croson, R. (2009). A field experiment in charitable contribution: The impact of social information on the voluntary provision of public goods. The Economic Journal, 119, 1422–1439.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Wooldridge, J. M. (2005). Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20, 39–54.CrossRef Wooldridge, J. M. (2005). Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20, 39–54.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Who are the voluntary leaders? Experimental evidence from a sequential contribution game
verfasst von
Raphaële Préget
Phu Nguyen-Van
Marc Willinger
Publikationsdatum
11.05.2016
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Theory and Decision / Ausgabe 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0040-5833
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7187
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-016-9550-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2016

Theory and Decision 4/2016 Zur Ausgabe

Premium Partner