1. Maarten Berg Results of a solidarity game experiment

2. 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment Content 1. Research questions and concepts 2. (Experimental) game theory 3. Design 4. First results 5. Phase 2: introducing identity and social distance

3. 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment 1. Research questions and concepts Research questions: 1.What are the conditions of solidarity? 2.What is the role of social distance?

4. 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment 1. Research questions and concepts Solidarity: -Definition: The performance of voluntary acts that benefit others, without the guarantee of receiving (at least) equal benefits in return -Solidarity refers to behavior -Solidarity refers to voluntary behavior -Solidarity is not defined in terms of support for public goods.

5. 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment 2. (Experimental) game theory What is an experiment? -Advantages of the experimental method -Control over the circumstances/conditions of interest -The ability to draw causal conclusions -Random assignment -Number of subjects -Disadvantages of the experimental method -Low external validity

6. 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment 2. (Experimental) game theory -What is a game? -Interactivity -E.g. The so-called Ultimatum Game -Rules of a game: how do ones decisions relate to the decisions of others and chance? -No deception rule -No social desirable statements

7. 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment 3. Design Basic design of our solidarity game: -Experimental groups consist of four players -Subjects answer ten quiz questions modelling the productive effort in a real economy -Two winners and two losers -Two winners distribute 20 credits (reflecting real money!)

8. 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment 3. Design 2*2 design Performance-based vs random-based One shot vs four shots One shotFour shots PerformanceCondition 1Condition 3 RandomCondition 2Condition 4

9. 2 studies Study 1: Laboratory experiment: 156 UvA student subjects Study 2: Field-experiment: 190 subjects from the Dappermarket-area 3. Design 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment9

10. 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment 4. Results of study 1 Number of credits that are voluntarily shared by the winners in round 1(maximum of 20): Condition 1: 1.87 (N=16) Condition 2: 4.62 (N=24) Condition 3: 4.05 (N=20) Condition 4: 7.28 (N=18) Conclusion: solidarity is possible

11. 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment 4. Results of study 1 One shot (condition 1 and 2): 3.53 Four shots (condition 3 and 4): 5.48 p = 0.07 Conclusion: when people are in a long-term, stable relationship with one another, they are more inclined to solidarity

12. 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment 4. Results of study 1 Performance (condition 1 and 3): 3.08 Random (condition 2 and 4): 5.76 P= 0.02 Conclusion: When people feel / know that they do not deserve their wealth, they are more inclined to solidarity (or: when they do feel they deserve their wealth, they are less inclined to share).

13. 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment 4. Results of study 1 Solidarity in: Round 1: 5.48 (Mean of both four shot conditions) Round 2: 3.58 (Mean of both four shot conditions) Round 3: 3.63 (Mean of both four shot conditions) Round 4: 0.74 (Mean of both four shot conditions) -Strategic considerations? -Dissapointed by lack of solidarity in previous rounds?

14. 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment 4. Results of study 1 Direct reciprocity: r = +0.326 (n=114), p < 0.001 (Gifts of the winners of round 1 with direct returns in round 2) Indirect reciprocity: r=+0.423 (n=76, p<0.001) (Cumulative gifts to others with cumulative gifts from others) Conclusion: solidarity seems to be returned (to some extent).

15. No proof of inequality-aversion Correlation between gifts from others in round 4 and cumulative earnings in round 1, 2 en 3 (controlled for being a winner or a loser in round 4): rp = + 0.048 (n.s.) 4. Results of study 1 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment15

16. 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment 5. Phase 2 In phase 2 of the experimental study, people from the Dappermarkt-area in Amsterdam will be used (rather than students) – This is the same neighborhood that is used in Laurens qualitative study

17. 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment 5. Phase 2 More importantly, social distance is introduced in the design. – The participants know crucial aspects of the identity of the other people in their group: Sex Age Marital status Etnicity / cultural background Number of years of living in the Dappermarkt-area

18. We see substantially more solidarity than in study 1: 8.94 versus 4.53 (aggregated mean) P<0.001 5. Results from study 2 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment18

19. We see less differences between the different conditions No greater solidarity in random conditions No greater solidarity in four shots conditions No proof of inequality-aversion However, strong proof of reciprocity 5. Results from study 2 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment19

20. Social distance within the group We see most solidarity when there are precisely two cultural groups represented in a group of four players, either in a 2:2 or a 3:1 ratio (Herfindahl-indices of 0.5 / 0.48). Cultural composition of the group seems to matter: F(4, 85) = 2.22 (p=0.073) Age compostion does not seem to matter 5. Results from study 2 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment20

21. Characteristics of the contributors Solidarity is positvely correlated with age of contributor (r= +0.175, p<0.10, n=90). Indication that autochthones share somewhat more than allochthones (9.21 versus 8.17, n.s.) We further need to analyze the effect of social distance between specific contributors and specific beneficiaries. 5. Results from study 2 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment21

22. Too pessimistic view of mankind, based on experimental research with student subjects? Potential for solidarity rather fixed or context- dependent and variable? Is the role of social distance (in terms of age) underestimated or overestimated? 6. Implications and questions 21/11/2011Results of a solidarity game experiment22