IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v5y2015i2p2158244015593119.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Abusing Good Intentions

Author

Listed:
  • Tamas Bereczkei
  • Zsolt Peter Szabo
  • Andrea Czibor

Abstract

The present study aims to understand how Machiavellians switch from one kind of response to another in different circumstances to maximize their profit. We set up a specific experimental paradigm that involved both a cooperative and competitive version of a public goods game. We found that Machiavellianism accounts for the total amount of money paid by the players ( N = 144) across five rounds in the cooperative but not in the competitive game. Compared with the others, individuals with higher scores on Mach scale contributed less to the public goods in the cooperative condition, but no difference was found in the competitive condition. Finally, this relationship was influenced by the sequence of the games. These results indicate that Machiavellians skillfully evaluate social environments and strive to exploit those with abundant contributions to public goods.

Suggested Citation

  • Tamas Bereczkei & Zsolt Peter Szabo & Andrea Czibor, 2015. "Abusing Good Intentions," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(2), pages 21582440155, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:5:y:2015:i:2:p:2158244015593119
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244015593119
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244015593119
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244015593119?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. Engel, Christoph & Rand, David G., 2014. "What does “clean” really mean? The implicit framing of decontextualized experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 386-389.
    2. Jeremy Cone & David G Rand, 2014. "Time Pressure Increases Cooperation in Competitively Framed Social Dilemmas," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Gunnthorsdottir, Anna & McCabe, Kevin & Smith, Vernon, 2002. "Using the Machiavellianism instrument to predict trustworthiness in a bargaining game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 49-66, February.
    4. Ned Augenblick & Jesse M. Cunha, 2015. "Competition And Cooperation In A Public Goods Game: A Field Experiment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 53(1), pages 574-588, January.
    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. David G Rand & Gordon Kraft-Todd & June Gruber, 2015. "The Collective Benefits of Feeling Good and Letting Go: Positive Emotion and (dis)Inhibition Interact to Predict Cooperative Behavior," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, January.
    2. Solnick, Sara J., 2007. "Cash and alternate methods of accounting in an experimental game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 316-321, February.
    3. Song, Fei, 2009. "Intergroup trust and reciprocity in strategic interactions: Effects of group decision-making mechanisms," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 164-173, January.
    4. Susann Fiedler & Adrian Hillenbrand, 2018. "Gain-Loss Framing in Interdependent Choice," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2018_15, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    5. Fei Song & C. Bram Cadsby & Yunyun Bi, 2012. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Guanxi in China: An Experimental Investigation," Management and Organization Review, The International Association for Chinese Management Research, vol. 8(2), pages 397-421, July.
    6. Dilger, Alexander & Müller, Julia & Müller, Michael, 2017. "Is trustworthiness written on the face?," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 2/2017, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    7. Volk, Stefan & Thöni, Christian & Ruigrok, Winfried, 2012. "Temporal stability and psychological foundations of cooperation preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 664-676.
    8. Maria Eduarda Fernandes & Marieta Valente, 2018. "When Is Green Too Rosy? Evidence from a Laboratory Market Experiment on Green Goods and Externalities," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, September.
    9. Valerio Capraro & David G. Rand, 2018. "Do the Right Thing: Experimental evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 99-111, January.
    10. Martin Kolmar & Andreas Wagener, 2019. "Group Identities in Conflicts," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 165-192, December.
    11. Deck, Cary & Jahedi, Salar & Sheremeta, Roman, 2021. "On the consistency of cognitive load," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    12. Maja Adena & Rustamdjan Hakimov & Steffen Huck, 2024. "Charitable Giving by the Poor: A Field Experiment in Kyrgyzstan," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 70(1), pages 633-646, January.
    13. Erik O. Kimbrough & Alexander Vostroknutov, 2016. "Norms Make Preferences Social," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 608-638, June.
    14. C. Bram Cadsby & Fei Song & Yunyun Bi, 2008. "Trust, Reciprocity And Social Distance In China: An Experimental Investigation," Working Papers 0809, University of Guelph, Department of Economics and Finance.
    15. Andreas Strobl & Jessica Niedermair & Kurt Matzler & Tobias Mussner, 2019. "Triggering Subordinate Innovation Behavior: The Influence Of Leaders’ Dark Personality Traits And Level 5 Leadership Behavior," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(05), pages 1-37, June.
    16. Ben-Ner, Avner & Kramer, Amit & Levy, Ori, 2008. "Economic and hypothetical dictator game experiments: Incentive effects at the individual level," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1775-1784, October.
    17. Konstantin Chatziathanasiou & Svenja Hippel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2020. "Do rights to resistance discipline the elites? An experiment on the threat of overthrow," Munich Papers in Political Economy 08, Munich School of Politics and Public Policy and the School of Management at the Technical University of Munich.
    18. Isler, Ozan & Gächter, Simon, 2022. "Conforming with peers in honesty and cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 75-86.
    19. Gächter, Simon & Nosenzo, Daniele & Renner, Elke & Sefton, Martin, 2008. "Who Makes a Good Leader? Social Preferences and Leading-by-Example," IZA Discussion Papers 3914, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. 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.

    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:sae:sagope:v:5:y:2015:i:2:p:2158244015593119. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.