The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Revisiting Kindness and Confusion in Public Goods Experiments
Abstract
There has been substantial recent interest in determining why there is cooperation in public goods experiments even in environments that provide all subjects with the incentive to free ride (see e.g., John O. Ledyard, 1995). Theories used to explain such cooperation generally posit either that subjects are “confused ” in the sense that they make errors or do not understand the game’s incentives, or that subjects contribute due to social factors such as altruism and reciprocity. Although several authors have pointed out the importance of distinguishing between these alternatives, 1 the roles that confusion and social motives play in determining public contributions remain poorly understood. This paper provides new evidence on the way that confusion and social motives determine contributions in public goods games by reporting data from experiments that use a new design with the Voluntary Contribution Mechanism (VCM). Two important and often replicated findings in the experimental public goods literature are (1) that subjects ’ public contributions are much greater than predicted by standard economic theories of free-riding and (2) that these contributions decay over the course of multiple-round games (see e.g., Douglas D. Davis and Charles A. Holt, 1993). Models that employ social factors to explain cooperation and its decay usually assume that subjects are motivated by altruism,
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
Cited by
Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments
Zizzo, D. J. (2010) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-009-9230-z · Cited by 1,194
Let’s Dance Together: Synchrony, Shared Intentionality and Cooperation
Reddish, P., Fischer, R., & Bulbulia, J. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071182 · Cited by 556
Disposition, history and contributions in public goods experiments
Gunnthorsdottir, A., Houser, D., & McCabe, K. (2007) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2005.03.008 · Cited by 273
Self-citationMarch, C. (2021) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.joep.2021.102426 · Cited by 72
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Houser, D., & Kurzban, R.
- Venue
- American Economic Review
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2002-08-01
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1062-1069
- ISSN
- 0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2059244565
- Cited by
- 276
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 24.86
- 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: Revisiting Kindness and Confusion in Public Goods Experiments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1257/00028280260344605
- The paper
- Houser, D., & Kurzban, R. (2002). Revisiting Kindness and Confusion in Public Goods Experiments. American Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.1257/00028280260344605
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.