The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Linear Public Goods Experiments: A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Objective: To use meta-analysis techniques to assess the impact of various factors on the extent of cooperation in standard linear public goods experiments using the voluntary contributions mechanism. Data Sources: Potentially relevant experiments were identified through searches of EconLit, the Internet Documents in Economics Access Service (IDEAS), and a survey article. Review Methods: A total of 349 potentially relevant studies were identified. Of these, 27 (representing a total of 711 groups of participants) met the inclusion criteria. Data were abstracted from these studies using a standardized protocol. Results were analyzed using weighted ordinary least squares. Average group efficiency was the dependent variable. Results: The marginal per capita return, communication, constant group composition over the session (“partners”), positive framing, and the use of children as subjects had a positive and significant effect (p < 0.05) on the average level of contribution to the public good. Heterogeneous endowments to subjects, experienced participants, and soliciting subjects’ beliefs regarding other participants’ behaviour prior to the start of the session/period had a negative and significant effect. A number of other factors were not identified as significant. Conclusion: The meta-analysis results parallel several key findings from previous literature reviews. In addition, they offer parameter estimates and an analysis of significance based on the totality of the available research evidence. More consistent reporting of the results of experiments would greatly improve the ability to conduct this type of research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
Gasoline demand revisited: an international meta-analysis of elasticities
Espey, M. (1998) · Energy Economics · doi:10.1016/s0140-9883(97)00013-3 · Cited by 444
Cited by
Determinants of generalized trust: a cross-country comparison
Bjørnskov, C. (2007) · Public Choice · doi:10.1007/s11127-006-9069-1 · Cited by 969
Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis.
Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000217 · Cited by 689
Conditional cooperation on three continents
Kocher, M. G., Cherry, T., Kroll, S., Netzer, R. J., & Sutter, M. (2008) · Economics Letters · doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2008.07.015 · Cited by 387
When and why? A critical survey on coordination failure in the laboratory
Devetag, G., & Ortmann, A. (2007) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-007-9178-9 · Cited by 319
Reporting guidelines for meta-analysis in economics
Havránek, T., Stanley, T. D., Doucouliagos, H., Bom, P., Geyer‐Klingeberg, J., Iwasaki, I., Reed, W. R., Rost, K., & van Aert, R. C. M. (2020) · Journal of Economic Surveys · doi:10.1111/joes.12363 · Cited by 271
Metadata
- Authors
- Zelmer, J.
- Venue
- Experimental Economics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2003-11
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 299-310
- ISSN
- 1386-4157 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6938
- OpenAlex
- W2102719910
- Cited by
- 573
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 18.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Linear Public Goods Experiments: A Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1023/a:1026277420119
- The paper
- Zelmer, J. (2003). Linear Public Goods Experiments: A Meta-Analysis. Experimental Economics. https://doi.org/10.1023/a%3A1026277420119
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.