EJSP2007 Daverichandpporinpgd
This article (David De Cremer, Tilburg University) reports two lab experiments on asymmetric step-level public good dilemmas. Experiment 1 (N=102) manipulated endowment (50 vs. 100 points) and provision point (low=120 vs. high=220) and found that higher-endowed participants contributed more overall and especially when the provision point was high; this effect was mediated by perceived criticality. Experiment 2 (N=104) placed all groups at the high provision point (220) and manipulated endowment and voice (voice vs. no voice); voice increased feelings of inclusiveness and criticality, raised contributions (particularly among the rich), and increased likelihood of surpassing the threshold; inclusiveness (marginally) mediated the voice effect among the rich.
Questions this document answers
50 points and 100 points.
Low provision point = 120 points; High provision point = 220 points.
Experiment 1: N = 102; Experiment 2: N = 104.