It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Cooperation is more likely when individuals can choose their interaction partner. However, partner choice may be detrimental in unequal societies, in which individuals differ in available resources and productivity, and thus in their attractiveness as interaction partners. Here we experimentally examine this conjecture in a repeated public goods game. Individuals (n = 336), participating in groups of eight participants, are assigned a high or low endowment and a high or low productivity factor (the value that their cooperation generates), creating four unique participant types. On each round, individuals are either assigned a partner (assigned partner condition) or paired based on their self-indicated preference for a partner type (partner choice condition). Results show that under partner choice, individuals who were assigned a high endowment and high productivity almost exclusively interact with each other, forcing other individuals into less valuable pairs. Consequently, pre-existing resource differences between individuals increase. These findings show how partner choice in social dilemmas can amplify resource inequality.
Cooperation is more likely when individuals can choose their interaction partner. However, here, the authors show that partner choice can increase resource inequality in a public goods game when people differ in resources and productivity needed for cooperation.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details





1 Leiden University, Social, Economic and Organisational Psychology, Leiden, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.5132.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 2312 1970); Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Poverty Interventions, Center for Applied Research on Social Sciences and Law, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.431204.0) (ISNI:0000 0001 0685 7679)
2 Leiden University, Social, Economic and Organisational Psychology, Leiden, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.5132.5) (ISNI:0000 0001 2312 1970)
3 University of Zurich, Institute of Psychology, Zurich, Switzerland (GRID:grid.7400.3) (ISNI:0000 0004 1937 0650)
4 University of Amsterdam, Institute of Psychology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (GRID:grid.7177.6) (ISNI:0000 0000 8499 2262)