Konferenzbeitrag
Determinants of Successful Cooperation in a Face-to-Face Social Dilemma
What makes you a successful cooperator? Using data from the British television game show ``Golden Balls'' we analyze a prisoner's dilemma game and its pre-play. We find that players strategically select their partner for the PD, e.g., they bear in mind whether contestants lied. Players' expectations about the stake size strongly influence the outcome of the PD: The lower the stakes, the more likely players successfully cooperate. Most interestingly, unilateral cooperation is encouraged by mutually promising not to defect and shaking hands on it, but a mere handshake serves as manipulating device and increases successful defection.
- Language
-
Englisch
- Bibliographic citation
-
Series: Beiträge zur Jahrestagung des Vereins für Socialpolitik 2011: Die Ordnung der Weltwirtschaft: Lektionen aus der Krise - Session: Coordination and Cooperation ; No. E7-V1
- Classification
-
Wirtschaft
Noncooperative Games
Field Experiments
Public Goods
- Event
-
Geistige Schöpfung
- (who)
-
Grätz, Silvia
Darai, Donja
- Event
-
Veröffentlichung
- (when)
-
2011
- Handle
- Last update
-
10.03.2025, 11:45 AM CET
Data provider
This object is provided by:
ZBW - Deutsche Zentralbibliothek für Wirtschaftswissenschaften - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft. If you have any questions about the object, please contact the data provider.
ZBW - Deutsche Zentralbibliothek für Wirtschaftswissenschaften - Leibniz-Informationszentrum Wirtschaft. If you have any questions about the object, please contact the data provider.
Object type
- Konferenzbeitrag
Associated
- Grätz, Silvia
- Darai, Donja
Time of origin
- 2011
Other Objects (12)
Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 2.0)
Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 2.0)
Face-to-face : Perceived personal relevance amplifies face processing
Documentation of Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 1.0)
Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior
Gender Differences in Face-to-Face Deceptive Behavior
Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior
Befragungsmethoden reviewed: face-to-face, telefonisch oder postalisch?
Befragungsmethoden reviewed: face-to-face, telefonisch oder postalisch?
Group mixing drives inequality in face-to-face gatherings
Group mixing drives inequality in face-to-face gatherings
Interviewer-related measurement error in face-to-face surveys
Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 2.0)
Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 2.0)
Face-to-face : Perceived personal relevance amplifies face processing
Documentation of Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 1.0)
Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior
Gender Differences in Face-to-Face Deceptive Behavior
Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior
Befragungsmethoden reviewed: face-to-face, telefonisch oder postalisch?
Befragungsmethoden reviewed: face-to-face, telefonisch oder postalisch?
Group mixing drives inequality in face-to-face gatherings
Group mixing drives inequality in face-to-face gatherings
Interviewer-related measurement error in face-to-face surveys
Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 2.0)
Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 2.0)
Face-to-face : Perceived personal relevance amplifies face processing
Documentation of Face-to-Face Surveys (Version 1.0)
Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior
Gender Differences in Face-to-Face Deceptive Behavior
Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior
Befragungsmethoden reviewed: face-to-face, telefonisch oder postalisch?
Befragungsmethoden reviewed: face-to-face, telefonisch oder postalisch?
Group mixing drives inequality in face-to-face gatherings
Group mixing drives inequality in face-to-face gatherings