IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0120379.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dilemma of Dilemmas: How Collective and Individual Perspectives Can Clarify the Size Dilemma in Voluntary Linear Public Goods Dilemmas

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel B Shank
  • Yoshihisa Kashima
  • Saam Saber
  • Thomas Gale
  • Michael Kirley

Abstract

Empirical findings on public goods dilemmas indicate an unresolved dilemma: that increasing size—the number of people in the dilemma—sometimes increases, decreases, or does not influence cooperation. We clarify this dilemma by first classifying public goods dilemma properties that specify individual outcomes as individual properties (e.g., Marginal Per Capita Return) and group outcomes as group properties (e.g., public good multiplier), mathematically showing how only one set of properties can remain constant as the dilemma size increases. Underpinning decision-making regarding individual and group properties, we propose that individuals are motivated by both individual and group preferences based on a theory of collective rationality. We use Van Lange's integrated model of social value orientations to operationalize these preferences as an amalgamation of outcomes for self, outcomes for others, and equality of outcomes. Based on this model, we then predict how the public good's benefit and size, combined with controlling individual versus group properties, produce different levels of cooperation in public goods dilemmas. A two (low vs. high benefit) by three (2-person baseline vs. 5-person holding constant individual properties vs. 5-person holding constant group properties) factorial experiment (group n = 99; participant n = 390) confirms our hypotheses. The results indicate that when holding constant group properties, size decreases cooperation. Yet when holding constant individual properties, size increases cooperation when benefit is low and does not affect cooperation when benefit is high. Using agent-based simulations of individual and group preferences vis-à-vis the integrative model, we fit a weighted simulation model to the empirical data. This fitted model is sufficient to reproduce the empirical results, but only when both individual (self-interest) and group (other-interest and equality) preference are included. Our research contributes to understanding how people's motivations and behaviors within public goods dilemmas interact with the properties of the dilemma to lead to collective outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel B Shank & Yoshihisa Kashima & Saam Saber & Thomas Gale & Michael Kirley, 2015. "Dilemma of Dilemmas: How Collective and Individual Perspectives Can Clarify the Size Dilemma in Voluntary Linear Public Goods Dilemmas," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-19, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0120379
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120379
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120379&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0120379?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carpenter, Jeffrey P., 2007. "Punishing free-riders: How group size affects mutual monitoring and the provision of public goods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 31-51, July.
    2. R. Mark Isaac & James M. Walker, 1988. "Group Size Effects in Public Goods Provision: The Voluntary Contributions Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 103(1), pages 179-199.
    3. Joachim Weimann & Jeannette Brosig-Koch & Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Claudia Keser & Christian Stahr, 2012. "Public-good experiments with large groups," FEMM Working Papers 120009, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniele Nosenzo & Simone Quercia & Martin Sefton, 2015. "Cooperation in small groups: the effect of group size," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(1), pages 4-14, March.
    2. Hui-Chun Peng, 2022. "Effects of majority-vote reward mechanism on cooperation: a public good experimental study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 59(4), pages 989-1008, November.
    3. Bin Xu & C. Bram Cadsby & Liangcong Fan & Fei Song, 2013. "Group Size, Coordination, and the Effectiveness of Punishment in the Voluntary Contributions Mechanism: An Experimental Investigation," Games, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Christophe Lemiére & Gaute Torsvik & Ottar Mæstad & Christopher H. Herbst & Kenneth L. Leonard, 2013. "Evaluating the Impact of Results-Based Financing on Health Worker Performance: Theory, Tools and Variables to Inform an Impact Evaluation," Health, Nutrition and Population (HNP) Discussion Paper Series 98269, The World Bank.
    5. David Masclet & Charles N. Noussair & Marie-Claire Villeval, 2013. "Threat And Punishment In Public Good Experiments," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(2), pages 1421-1441, April.
    6. Hamet SARR & Mohamed Ali BCHIR & François COCHARD & Anne ROZAN, 2021. "Is the “average Pigouvian tax” robust to the size of the group of polluters?," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 285-295, September.
    7. Fellner, Gerlinde & Lünser, Gabriele K., 2014. "Cooperation in local and global groups," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 364-373.
    8. Xiaoting Zheng & Puyan Nie, 2013. "Effective Punishment Needs Legitimacy," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 89(287), pages 522-544, December.
    9. Alexander Fink, 2011. "Under what conditions may social contracts arise? Evidence from the Hanseatic League," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 173-190, June.
    10. Josef Falkinger, 2004. "Noncooperative Support of Public Norm Enforcement in Large Societies," CESifo Working Paper Series 1368, CESifo.
    11. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David, 2015. "Emotion venting and punishment in public good experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 55-67.
    12. Kovarik, Jaromir, 2009. "Social Preferences - Literature Survey," IKERLANAK 2009-36, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
    13. Kurt A. Ackermann & Ryan O. Murphy, 2019. "Explaining Cooperative Behavior in Public Goods Games: How Preferences and Beliefs Affect Contribution Levels," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-34, March.
    14. Weimann, Joachim & Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Heinrich, Timo & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Keser, Claudia, 2019. "Public good provision by large groups – the logic of collective action revisited," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 348-363.
    15. Jan Schmitz, 2019. "When Two Become One: How Group Mergers Affect Solidarity," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-42, July.
    16. Bao, Te & Hennequin, Myrna & Hommes, Cars & Massaro, Domenico, 2020. "Coordination on bubbles in large-group asset pricing experiments," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    17. Sung Ha Hwang, 2009. "Larger groups may alleviate collective action problems," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2009-05, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    18. Mehmet Karacuka & Martin Leroch, 2005. "Denominational Schism: An Economic Perspective," Others 0512013, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Jensen, Thomas & Markussen, Thomas, 2021. "Group size, signaling and the effect of democracy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 258-273.
    20. Mollerstrom, Johanna & Strulov-Shlain, Avner & Taubinsky, Dmitry, 2024. "The impact of group size on giving versus demand for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 237(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0120379. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.