The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
THEORIES OF COMMITMENT, ALTRUISM AND RECIPROCITY: EVIDENCE FROM LINEAR PUBLIC GOODS GAMES
Abstract
Theories of commitment, altruism, and reciprocity have been invoked to explain and describe behavior in public goods and social dilemma situations. Commitment has been used to explain behaviors like water conservation and voting. Altruism has been applied to explain contributions to charities and intergenerational transfers and bequests. Reciprocity has been invoked to explain gift exchange and labor market decisions. This paper describes a set of experiments, which distinguish between these competing theories by testing their comparative statics predictions in a linear public goods setting. Results provide strong support for reciprocity theories over either theories of commitment or of altruism.(JEL C9, D64, H41, C72)
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
Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving
Andreoni, J. (1990) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2234133 · Cited by 5,825
Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners' dilemma
Kreps, D. M., Milgrom, P., Roberts, J., & Wilson, R. (1982) · Journal of Economic Theory · doi:10.1016/0022-0531(82)90029-1 · Cited by 2,494
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
Cited by
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
Spontaneous giving and calculated greed
Rand, D. G., Greene, J. D., & Nowak, M. A. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11467 · Cited by 1,334
Protests as Strategic Games: Experimental Evidence from Hong Kong's Antiauthoritarian Movement*
Cantoni, D., Yang, D. Y., Yuchtman, N., & Zhang, Y. J. (2019) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjz002 · Cited by 209
Multiple gossip statements and their effect on reputation and trustworthiness
Sommerfeld, R. D., Krambeck, H.-J., & Milinski, M. (2008) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0762 · Cited by 158
Payoff-based learning explains the decline in cooperation in public goods games
Burton-Chellew, M. N., Nax, H. H., & West, S. A. (2015) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.2678 · Cited by 63
Does altruism matter on online group buying? Perspectives from egotistic and altruistic motivation
Shiau, W.-L., & Chau, P. Y. K. (2015) · Information Technology & People · doi:10.1108/itp-08-2014-0174 · Cited by 57
Metadata
- Authors
- CROSON, R. T. A.
- Venue
- Economic Inquiry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-01-04
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 199-216
- ISSN
- 0043-3640 (ISSN-L)
- 0095-2583
- 1465-7295
- OpenAlex
- W2093650407
- Cited by
- 427
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 66.76
- 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
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.
