Does Group Identification Matter? - Experimental Evidence Shamlesh Annah Sebastian Edwards

1. Does Group Identification Matter? - Experimental Evidence ShamleshAnnah Sebastian Edwards Christian Freund Julian Schumacher MarcinStrzelczyk Course: Experimental Methods in Economics Supervisors: Elke Renner, Chris Starmer 7 May 2010

2. Outline • Motivation • Literature Review • Setup • Experimental Design • Results • Conclusion

3. Most group-based experiments reported in the economic literature so far consider groups as being a homogeneous entity. Real-world social structures, however, often exhibit different layers of organization, and different scales on which groups exist. Examples: International Economics: Trade agreements, environmental agreements (Kyoto Protocol etc.): At least three different scales: The individual, the country, and the group of countries coming together for this agreement. Political Economics: Social identities and voter behaviour. At least three different scales: The individual, the social subgroup it counts itself towards, and the whole population. Motivation We devised an Public Good experiment designed to illuminate whether the introduction of an “intermediate social layer”, that is an additional – artificial social structure between “individual” and “whole group” – affects individual contribution behaviour in a significant way. The added structure is not reflected in the payoff structure of the experiment, i.e. we have a psychological game.

4. Literature Review 1/2 Individual behaviour in PG Games. There seem to be general pattern in public contribution games, depending on repetition (SOURCE), punishment (SOURCE), and other factors.(Isaac, Walker and Williams 1994,Gächter and Renner 2003 and Gächter, Thöniand Herrmann 2008) George A. Akerlof and Rachel E. Kranton (2000), for instance, suggest that simply being able to identify with a group is itself an important source of individual well-being. Groups in Public Good games.(REFERENCE ON GROUP COMPETITION) PG field experiments.Yoeli (2008) examines the behaviour of customers of an electricity utility. Work in progress, thus no conclusive results so far.

5. Literature Review 2/2 The individual and the group. Social comparison theory emphasizes that people in group settings behave differently than in isolation. In particular, it assumes that people are motivated both to perceive and present themselves in a socially desirable way. To accomplish this, a person might react in a way that is closer to what he regards as the social norm than how he would act in isolation. (Levinger and Schneider, 1969) Psychological group effects.Group identification, Insider/Outsider-effects – while the former would presumably lead to higher contribution (achieve a socially optimal outcome), the latter might rather decrease average contributions. Hargreaves Heap and Daniel John Zizzo(2006) find decreasing trust in a group setting, due to negative discrimination against outsiders. Groups and Social Capital.Putnam (Julian). Social capital in the form of trust is most effectively build by experiencing interaction in social networks. Since the public good game requires trust in the action of others to achieve a social optimal outcome, this should increase average contributions.

6. Research Question & Hypothesis Research Question. Does the existence of an “intermediate social layer”, i.e. of additional group structure within the population, affect individual contribution behaviour in a Public Good game in a significant way? Hypothesis. H0: Additional structure does not change individual contribution behaviour. H1: Additional Structure does change individual behaviour (direction not determined)

7. Experimental Design

8. Experimental Design IGtreatment GItreatment PSYCHOLOGICAL GROUP EFFECT Individual decision Group decision Repetition control / preference bias Preference control / repetition bias Preference control / repetition bias Revelation Revelation iγ,tknowsonlyφ(πγ,t)! Individual decision Group decision Revelation Revelation Payoffs Preference bias Repetition bias Unequal distribution of free riding / conditional cooperation / social preferences between groups Changing beliefs about other’s contributions Imperfect conditional cooperation Lack of enforcement/ punishment Confunding group effect with heterogenous preferences Mitigate by N → ∞ Declining contributions

9. Results 1/3 • Higher meanfor individual setting (3.78) thanforgroupsetting (2.33) • Strong clusteringofgroupcontributions, almost uniform contributionof individual contributions • Nosignificantdifference in distributions (Mann-Whitney)

10. Results 2/3 • Higher meanfor individual setting (3.78) thanforgroupsetting(3.44) • Strong clusteringofgroupcontributions, almost uniform contributionof individual contributions • Nosignificantdifference in distributions (Mann-Whitney)

11. Results 3/3 • Higher meanforgroupsetting(2.33) thanforindividual setting(1.33) • Overall lowercontributionsthan in IG treatment • Nosignificantdifference in distributions (Mann-Whitney)

12. Results: Additional remarks • Weakly significant mean-difference across treatment groups (t = -1.64) heterogenous preference bias? • Weakly significant difference of individual contribution across treatments in the individual setting (z = -1.81)  preference and repetition bias?

13. Conclusions • No significant differences between group/individual contributions • However, these quantitative results are questionable due to limitations: • subject knew each other, were familiar with experimental design and game theoretic prediction • given the time slot, it was not possible to pose control questions in order to make sure each participant fully understood the game, especially the lack of any connection between the group structure and the payoff function. • very small sample size: strong evidence of preference bias • Resources not sufficient to investigate further group effects • Slight hint of repetition bias: across-treatment comparison more meaningful • Possible future directions: • varying the group structure (larger subgroups / different subgroups) • varying the extent to which these groups are constituted. Here: lowest possible level, mere identification with a n anonymous group. May be extended to groups with known members, communication, …

14. Old slides – not part of presentation!

15. Literature Review Andreoni 1988 runs a PG game to try to solve the puzzle. Finds neither the learning hypothesis or a rational strategy can explain the puzzle. • Fehr and Schmidt 1999 model Inequality aversion people resist inequitable outcomes meaning they are willing to give up some material payoff to move in a direction of more equitable outcomes. • This has lead to beliefs that people get utility from the fact others are benefitting ‘warm glow’. References: Fischbacher & Gächter– Social Preferences, Beliefs and the Dynamics of Free Riding in Public Good Experiments, forthcoming in AER Fehr & Gächter – Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments, AER 2000 Fehr & Schmidt – A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation, QJE 1999 Andreoni – Cooperation in Public-Goods Experiments: Kindness or Confusion?, AER 1988

16. Literature Review The social comparison theory emphasizes that people in group settings behave differently than in isolation. In particular, it assumes that people are motivated both to perceive and present themselves in a socially desirable way. To accomplish this, a person might react in a way that is closer to what he regards as the social norm than how he would act in isolation. (Levinger and Schneider, 1969) The persuasive argument theory, deliberation drives group decisions in a particular direction because it is more persuasive. A related explanation of group shifts is that people with certain preferences tend to be more persuasive than others (for example, more selfish individuals are also more aggressive in deliberation). (Burnstein et al., 1973; Brown, 1974)

17. Results (between treatments)

18. Results (stage 2) • Group mean (3.44) higher individual mean (1.33) • Strong clustering of individual contributions around 0, rather uniform group contributions • Weakly significant (10 %-level) difference in distributions (Mann-Whitney)