IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2004.00944.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Status hierarchy and group cooperation: A generalized model

Author

Listed:
  • Hsuan-Wei Lee
  • Yen-Ping Chang
  • Yen-Sheng Chiang

Abstract

In a refreshing mathematical investigation, Mark (2018) shows that status hierarchy may facilitate the emergence of cooperation in groups. Despite the contribution, the present paper notes that there are limitations in Mark's model that makes it less realistic than it could in explaining real-world experiences. Consequently, we present a more generalized modified framework in which his model is a special case, by developing and introducing a new hierarchy measure into the model to estimate the cooperation level in a set of hierarchical structures omitted in Mark's work yet common in everyday life--those with multiple leaders. We derived the conditions under which cooperation can emerge in these groups, and verified our analytical predictions in agent-based computer simulations. In so doing, not only does our model elaborate on its predecessor and support Mark's general prediction. For theory, our work further reveals two novel phenomena of group cooperation: Both the relative number of cooperators to defectors in groups and the assortativity among these different roles can backfire; they are not always the higher, the better for cooperation to thrive. For methodology, the hierarchy measure developed and our model using the measure may also be applied in future research on a wide range of related topics.

Suggested Citation

  • Hsuan-Wei Lee & Yen-Ping Chang & Yen-Sheng Chiang, 2020. "Status hierarchy and group cooperation: A generalized model," Papers 2004.00944, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2004.00944
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.00944
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wenwen Xie & Benjamin Ho & Stephan Meier & Xinyue Zhou, 2017. "Rank reversal aversion inhibits redistribution across societies," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(8), pages 1-5, August.
    2. Hemingway, H. & Nicholson, A. & Stafford, M. & Roberts, R. & Marmot, M., 1997. "The impact of socioeconomic status on health functioning as assessed by the SF-36 questionnaire: The Whitehall II study," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 87(9), pages 1484-1490.
    3. Theodore C. Bergstrom, 2002. "Evolution of Social Behavior: Individual and Group Selection," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 67-88, Spring.
    4. Christina Starmans & Mark Sheskin & Paul Bloom, 2017. "Why people prefer unequal societies," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(4), pages 1-7, April.
    5. Christopher McConnell & Yotam Margalit & Neil Malhotra & Matthew Levendusky, 2018. "The Economic Consequences of Partisanship in a Polarized Era," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(1), pages 5-18, January.
    6. Luo, Renfu & Zhang, Linxiu & Huang, Jikun & Rozelle, Scott, 2007. "Elections, fiscal reform and public goods provision in rural China," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 583-611, September.
    7. Olken, Benjamin A., 2010. "Direct Democracy and Local Public Goods: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(2), pages 243-267, May.
    8. Toby Bolsen & Paul J. Ferraro & Juan Jose Miranda, 2014. "Are Voters More Likely to Contribute to Other Public Goods? Evidence from a Large‐Scale Randomized Policy Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(1), pages 17-30, January.
    9. Boris Groysberg & Jeffrey T. Polzer & Hillary Anger Elfenbein, 2011. "Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth: How High-Status Individuals Decrease Group Effectiveness," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 722-737, June.
    10. John R. Hamman & Roberto A. Weber & Jonathan Woon, 2011. "An Experimental Investigation of Electoral Delegation and the Provision of Public Goods," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(4), pages 738-752, October.
    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. Yen-Sheng Chiang & Yung-Fong Hsu, 2017. "Direct Election of Group Decision-Makers Can Facilitate Cooperation in the Public Goods Game," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 197-213, January.
    2. Kahsay, Goytom Abraha & Medhin, Haileselassie, 2020. "Leader turnover and forest management outcomes: Micro-level evidence from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    3. Dal Bó, Pedro & Foster, Andrew & Kamei, Kenju, 2024. "The democracy effect: A weights-based estimation strategy," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 220(C), pages 31-45.
    4. Drazen, Allan & Ozbay, Erkut Y., 2019. "Does “being chosen to lead” induce non-selfish behavior? Experimental evidence on reciprocity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 13-21.
    5. Lu, Jie, 2015. "Varieties of Governance in China: Migration and Institutional Change in Chinese Villages," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199378746.
    6. Fanny E. Schories, 2022. "The Influence of Indirect Democracy and Leadership Choice on Cooperation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1173-1201, September.
    7. Cai, Meina & Sun, Xin, 2018. "Institutional bindingness, power structure, and land expropriation in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 172-186.
    8. Mu, Ren & Zhang, Xiaobo, 2011. "The role of elected and appointed village leaders in the allocation of public resources: Evidence from a low-income region in China," IFPRI discussion papers 1061, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    9. Thomas Markussen & Jean-Robert Tyran, 2023. "Is There a Dividend of Democracy? Experimental Evidence from Cooperation Games," CESifo Working Paper Series 10616, CESifo.
    10. Mu, Ren & Zhang, Xiaobo, 2014. "Do elected leaders in a limited democracy have real power? Evidence from rural China," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 17-27.
    11. Drazen, Allan & Ozbay, Erkut, 2016. "Does “Being Chosen to Lead†Induce Non-Selfish Behavior? Experimental Evidence on Reciprocity," CEPR Discussion Papers 11338, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Grieco, Daniela & Bripi, Francesco, 2022. "Participation of charity beneficiaries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 1-17.
    13. Pedro Dal Bo & Andrew Foster & Kenju Kamei, 2019. "The Democracy Effect: a weights-based identification strategy," Working Papers 2019-4, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    14. Wong, Ho Lun & Wang, Yu & Luo, Renfu & Zhang, Linxiu & Rozelle, Scott, 2017. "Local governance and the quality of local infrastructure: Evidence from village road projects in rural China," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 119-132.
    15. Dani Rodrik, 2018. "Populism and the economics of globalization," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(1), pages 12-33, June.
    16. Astrid Dannenberg & Carlo Gallier, 2020. "The choice of institutions to solve cooperation problems: a survey of experimental research," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(3), pages 716-749, September.
    17. van Hulsen, Merel A.J. & Rohde, Kirsten I.M. & van Exel, Job, 2023. "Preferences for investment in and allocation of additional healthcare capacity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 320(C).
    18. Martin G. Kocher & Fangfang Tan & Jing Yu, 2018. "Providing Global Public Goods: Electoral Delegation And Cooperation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 381-397, January.
    19. Xiaogeng Xu & Satu Metsälampi & Michael Kirchler & Kaisa Kotakorpi & Peter Hans Matthews & Topi Miettinen, 2023. "Which income comparisons matter to people, and how? Evidence from a large field experiment," Working Papers 10, Finnish Centre of Excellence in Tax Systems Research.
    20. Ibragimov, Rustam, 2008. "A Tale of Two Tails: Peakedness Properties in Inheritance Models of Evolutionary Theory," Scholarly Articles 2624003, Harvard University Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2004.00944. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.