The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social Preferences, Beliefs, and the Dynamics of Free Riding in Public Good Experiments
Open accessAbstract
We provide a test of the role of social preferences and beliefs in voluntary cooperation and its decline. We elicit individuals’ cooperation preferences in one experiment and use them – as well as subjects’ elicited beliefs – to explain contributions to a public good played repeatedly. We find substantial heterogeneity in people’s preferences. With simulation methods based on this data, we show that the decline of cooperation can be driven by the fact that most people have a preference to contribute less than others, rather than by their changing beliefs of others’ contribution over time. Universal free riding is very likely despite the fact that most people are not selfish.
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
Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.980 · Cited by 4,547
Antisocial Punishment Across Societies
Herrmann, B., Thöni, C., & Gächter, S. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1153808 · Cited by 2,038
A Simple Mechanism for the Efficient Provision of Public Goods: Experimental Evidence
Falkinger, J., Fehr, E., Gächter, S., & Winter-Ebmer, R. (2000) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.90.1.247 · Cited by 338
Self-citation
Cited by
TESTING ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES IN THE FIELD: THREAT, MORAL APPEAL AND SOCIAL INFORMATION
Fellner, G., Sausgruber, R., & Traxler, C. (2013) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1111/jeea.12013 · Cited by 370
FDI AND TAXATION: A META-STUDY
Feld, L. P., & Heckemeyer, J. H. (2011) · Journal of Economic Surveys · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2010.00674.x · Cited by 284
Open collaboration for innovation: Principles and performance
Levine, S. S., & Prietula, M. J. (2014) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.0872 · Cited by 263
Humans choose representatives who enforce cooperation in social dilemmas through extortion
Milinski, M., Hilbe, C., Semmann, D., Sommerfeld, R., & Marotzke, J. (2016) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms10915 · Cited by 62
The Behavioural Dimensions of International Cooperation
Messner, D., Guarin, A., & Haun, D. (2013) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2361423 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Fischbacher, U., & Gachter, S.
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2153493740
- Cited by
- 190
- References
- 3
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Social Preferences, Beliefs, and the Dynamics of Free Riding in Public Good Experiments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2139/ssrn.1314687
- The paper
- Fischbacher, U., & Gachter, S. (2008). Social Preferences, Beliefs, and the Dynamics of Free Riding in Public Good Experiments. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1314687
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.
