Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T11:12:51.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heterogeneous Agents in Public Goods Experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Roberto M. Burlando and
Francesco Guala
Roberto M. Burlando*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Torino, Italy and School of Psychology, University of Exeter, UK
Francesco Guala*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Philosophy, University of Exeter, UK
*
email: roberto.burlando@unito.it
email: f.guala@ex.ac.uk
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We explore by purely experimental means a heterogeneous agents scenario in experimental public goods games, assuming the existence of at least three types of player: free riders, cooperators, and reciprocators. We identify the various types by means of four classification methods, and then play the public goods game with homogeneous groups. We observe that (1) the average contribution level is enhanced in this setting; (2) the decay phenomenon is replicated in groups of ‘pure’ free riders, whereas in groups of cooperative and reciprocating players the contribution is high and fairly stable throughout the game.

Keywords

economic experimentvoluntary contributionheterogeneous agentsreciprocation

JEL classification

H41: Public GoodsC92: Laboratory, Group Behavior

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , April 2005, pp. 35 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

The experiments reported in this paper were financed by the Cognitive Science Laboratory and the Computational and Experimental Economics Laboratory of the University of Trento. We would like to thank Marco Tecilla, Macrina Marchesin and Dino Parisi for their help in running the experiments, and Luigi Mittone, director of CEEL, for letting us use the laboratory's resources. Paul Webley, Robert Moir, seminar participants at the Universities of Pisa and Trento, Charles Holt and two anonymous referees provided very useful comments on a previous draft.

References

Anderson, S.P., Goeree, J.K., and Holt, C.A. (1998). “A Theoretical Analysis of Altruism and Decision Error in Public Goods Games.” Journal of Public Economics. 70, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. (1988). “Why Free Ride? Strategies and Learning in Public Goods Experiments.” Journal of Public Economics. 37, 291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. (1995a). “Warm Glow vs. Cold Prickle: The Effects of Positive and Negative Framing on Cooperation in Experiments.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 110, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. (1995b). “Cooperation in Public Goods Experiments: Kindness or Confusion?” American Economic Review. 85, 891–904.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J. and Miller, J. (2002). “Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism.” Econometrica. 70, 737–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J. and Schram, A. (2001). “Cooperation and Noise in Public Goods Experiments: Applying the Contribution Function Approach.” Journal of Public Economics. 79, 399–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burlando, R.M. and Hey, J.D. (1997). “Do Anglo-Saxons Free Ride More?” Journal of Public Economics, 64. 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burlando, R.M. and Webley, P. (1999). “Individual Differences and Long-run Equilibria in a Public Good Experiment.” In Inquiries into the Nature and Causes of Behavior: Proceedings of the 24th IAREP Annual Colloquium. Belgirate: Italy.Google Scholar
Charness, G. and Rabin, M. (2002). “Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 117, 817–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufwenberg, M. and Kirchsteiger, G. (2004). “A Theory of Sequential Reciprocity.” Games and Economic Behavior. 47, 268–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrhart, K.M. and Keser, C. (1999). “Mobility and Cooperation: On the Run.” Working Paper 99s-24. CIRANO, Montreal.Google Scholar
Falk, A. and Fischbacher, U. (2000). “A Theory of Reciprocity.” Working Paper no. 6. Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich.Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Fishbacher, U. (2002). “Why Social Preferences Matter—The Impact of Non-selfish Motives on Competition, Cooperation and Incentives.” Economic Journal. 112, C1–C33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. and Gachter, S. (2000). “Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments.” American Economic Review. 90, 980–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U., Gachter, S., and Fehr, E. (2001). “Are People Conditionally Cooperative? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment.” Economics Letters. 71, 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gächter, S. and Thoni, C. (2005). “Social Learning and Voluntary Cooperation among Like-minded People.” Journal of the European Economic Association. 3, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goeree, J. K. and Holt, C.A. (2002). “Private Costs and Public Benefits: Unravelling the Effects of Altruism and Noisy Behavior.” Journal of Public Economics. 83, 257–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesinger, D.W. and Livingston, J.W. (1973). “Towards a Model of Interpersonal Motivation in Experimental Games.” Behavioral Science. 18, 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, J.J. (2001a). “Accounting for Heterogeneity, Diversity and General Equilibrium in Evaluating Social Programmes.” Economic Journal. 111, F654–F699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, J.J. (2001b). “Microdata, Heterogeneity, and the Evaluation of Public Policy.” Journal of Political Economy. 109, 673–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houser, D. and Kurzban, R. (2002). “Revisiting Kindness and Confusion in Public Goods Experiments.” American Economic Review. 92, 1062–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaac, R. M., Walker, J.M., and Thomas, S.H. (1984). “Divergent Evidence on Free Riding: An Experimental Examination of Possible Explanations.” Public Choice. 43, 113–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D.W. and Norem-Hebeisen, A.A. (1979). “A Measure of Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Attitudes.” Journal of Social Psychology. 109, 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, H. and Stahelski, A. (1970). “Social Interaction Basis of Cooperators’ and Competitors’ Beliefs About Others.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 16, 66–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keser, C. (1996). “Voluntary Contributions to a Public Good When Partial Contribution is a Dominant Strategy.” Economics Letters. 50, 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledyard, J.O. (1995). “Public Goods: A Survey of Experimental Research.” In Kagel, J. and Roth, A. (eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Levine, D. (1998). “Modelling Altruism and Spitefulness in Experiments.” Review of Economic Dynamics. 1, 593–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebrand, W.B.G. (1984). “The Effect of Social Motives, Communication and Group Size on Behavior in an N-person Multi-stage Mixed-motive Game.” European Journal of Social Psychology. 14, 239264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Offerman, T., Sonnemans, J., and Schram, A. (1996). “Value Orientations, Expectations, and Voluntary Contributions in Public Goods.” Economic Journal. 106, 817–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, T., Putterman, L., and Unel, B. (2002). “Voluntary Association in Public Goods Experiments: Reciprocity, Mimicry, and Efficiency.” Unpublished paper, Brown University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfrey, T.R. and Prisbey, J.E. (1996). “Altruism, Reputation and Noise in Linear Public Goods Experiments.” Journal of Public Economics. 61, 409–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfrey, T.R. and Prisbey, J.E. (1997). “Anomalous Behaviorin Public Goods Experiments: How Much and Why?” American Economic Review. 87, 829–846.Google Scholar
Plott, C.R. (1996). “Rational Individual Behaviour in Markets and Social Choice Processes: The Discovered Preference Hypothesis.” In Arrow, K.J., Colombatto, E., Perlman, M. and Schmidt, C. (eds.), The Rational Foundations of Economic Behaviour. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rabin, M. (1993). “Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics.” American Economic Review. 83, 1281–302.Google Scholar
Rushton, J.P. (1980). Altruism, Socialisation and Society. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. (1984). “Reciprocity: The Supply of Public Goods Through Voluntary Contributions.” Economic Journal. 94, 772–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webley, P., Burgoigne, C., Lea, S.E.G., and Young, B. (2001). The Economic Psychology of Everyday Life. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.Google Scholar