Linear Public Goods Experiments: A Meta-Analysis

By Jennifer Zelmer. 2003

589 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Marketing

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c643d0c1737794879d7567ede3a3070cb9f464dc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

In Marketing

Citations in the corpus

Determinants of generalized trust: A cross-country comparison (2007, background): “Another demographic variable to be considered is population size, since much network analysis finds that features such as trust are more likely to evolve in small networks (e.g. Zelmer, 2003).”
Trust games: A meta-analysis (2011, result): “In this sense, our study most resembles those performed by Zelmer (2003) for the public goods game, Oosterbeek, Sloof, and Van de Kuilen (2004) for the ultimatum game, and Jones (2008) for the prisoner’s dilemma game.”
Punishment Despite Reasonable Doubt - A Public Goods Experiment with Sanctions Under Uncertainty (2010, unknown): “This design has been widely tested (for an overview, see Zelmer 2003) and it allows investigating cooperation and punishment behavior and comparing the efficiency of different punishment institutions.”
Public Goods Provision and Sanctioning in Privileged Groups (2007, background): “However, the evidence from previous public goods experiments suggests some voluntary contribution (see e.g., Ledyard, 1995; Zelmer, 2003).”
REPORTING GUIDELINES FOR META‐ANALYSIS IN ECONOMICS (2020, background): “…meta-analyses have reached the mark of 500 or more citations, examples include Stanley and Jarrell (1989), Gorg and Strobl (2001), Stanley (2001), Woodward and Wui (2001), Zelmer (2003), Weichselbaumer and Winter-Ebmer (2005), Rose and Stanley (2005), and Doucouliagos and Ulubasoglu (2008).”
Personality, Punishment and Public Goods: Strategic Shifts towards Cooperation as a Matter of Dispositional Honesty–Humility (2012, background): “As hinted previously, empirically observable contributions to public goods are often substantial (e.g. Croson &Marks, 1998; Rapoport & Suleiman, 1993), and several determinants of cooperative behaviour have been identified (for a meta‐ analysis, see Zelmer, 2003).”
Reward, punishment, and cooperation: a meta-analysis. (2011, background): “At the same time, we should acknowledge an earlier meta-analysis, conducted by Zelmer (2003), which reviewed factors affecting cooperation in public good settings.”
When and why? A critical survey on coordination failure in the laboratory (2007, unknown): “…tables for their two seminal studies.5 Earnings table for the “Median game” (Table Γ in VHBB, 1991) 3A meta-study (e.g., Croson and Marks, 2000, or Zelmer, 2003, for public good experiments) that quantitatively evaluates the impact of various factors on coordination (failure) is not (yet)…”
Climate change in a public goods game: Investment decision in mitigation versus adaptation (2010, result): “However, this result is less than the average level of contribution found in international public good and prisoner dilemma games, which is approximately 40% to 60% as discussed in the introduction (Fehr and Gächter 2000a; Anderson and Putterman 2006; and Zelmer 2003).”
The framing of games and the psychology of play (2011, unknown): “Yet, numerous experiments have shown that many people do not play accordingly (see the surveys in Ledyard, 1995; Zelmer, 2003; Gächter and Herrmann, 2009; and Chaudhuri, 2011).”
Cooperation in small groups: the effect of group size (2013, unknown): “This conclusion is reinforced by the meta-analysis results reported by Zelmer (2003).”
Conditional cooperation on three continents (2008, background): “regard to differences in cultural and social variables (see Zelmer, 2003; Brandts et al.,”