Organizing Groups for Collective Action
Abstract
How can the beneficiaries of collective action be persuaded to contribute the resources (time, energy, money) necessary for the effort to succeed? Rational and selfish players will recognize they can free ride on the successful contributions of others. If the effort is not successful, they will lose a contribution—and be “suckered.” Other than relying on altruism, organizers of the group effort can modify incentives so that players are more prepared to contribute. Laboratory experiments offer one way of assessing the effectiveness of various such modifications; we conducted such tests to see how well contributing is promoted by (1) assuring contributors that they will not lose if the group effort fails (a “money-back guarantee”) and (2) enforcing contributions if it succeeds (“fair share”). We expect the latter to be more successful because it is “stable,” unlike the former, whose success can be undermined by expectations of that success. Three experimental replications demonstrate that the money-back guarantee is no more successful than a standard dilemma, but fair-share requirements increase contributing significantly over that base. Analysis of subjects' expectations about others' behavior offers some support to the hypothesized process undermining the money-back guarantee, but motivational factors must also be taken into account for a full explanation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Dawes et al., Rapoport and Eshed-Levy, and Isaac et al. found that a promised refund increases overall contributions.
“Dawes et al. (1986), 5 Rapoport and Eshed-Levy (1989), and Isaac, Schmidtz, and Walker (1989) all find that a promised refund increases overall contributions.”
From The Effects of Seed Money and Refunds on Charitable Giving: Experimental Evidence from a University Capital Campaign (2002) · cites this paper as Dawes et al. (1986)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Collective action and the evolution of social norms.
Ostrom, E. (2000) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.14.3.137 · Cited by 4,195 · see citing works
A Relational Model of Authority in Groups
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60283-x · Cited by 2,977 · see citing works
Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan
Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/bf02249397 · Cited by 2,392 · see citing works
Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: a selective survey of the literature
Chaudhuri, A. (2011) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-010-9257-1 · Cited by 1,445 · see citing works
List, J. A., & Lucking‐Reiley, D. (2002) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/324392 · Cited by 560 · see citing works
Intergroup conflict: individual, group, and collective interests
Bornstein, G. (2003) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0702_129-145 · Cited by 365 · see citing works
Voluntary provision of threshold public goods with continuous contributions: experimental evidence
Cadsby, C. B., & Maynes, E. (1999) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/s0047-2727(98)00049-8 · Cited by 279 · see citing works
Provision of step-level public goods: Effects of greed and fear of being gypped
Rapoport, A., & Eshed-Levy, D. (1989) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(89)90012-5 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Declerck, C. H., Boone, C., & Kiyonari, T. (2014) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nst040 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Chung, D., Yun, K., Kim, J. H., Jang, B., & Jeong, J. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017044 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dawes, R. M., Orbell, J. M., Simmons, R. T., & Van De Kragt, A. J. C.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Utah State University (US)
- ORCID
- Simmons, Randy T.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1986-12-01
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1171-1185
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2156042278
- Cited by
- 335
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 21.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
- Keywords
- collective action, free-riding, money-back guarantee, fair share, public goods, prisoner's dilemma, altruism, laboratory experiments
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review