Public Choice

, Volume 117, Issue 3–4, pp 295–314 | Cite as

Heterogeneous Preferences and Collective Action

  • T.K. Ahn
  • Elinor Ostrom
  • James M. Walker

Abstract

In recent years, scholarshave turned to alternative representationsof utility to capture motivationalheterogeneity across individuals. In theresearch reported here, we examine twomodels of heterogeneous utility –linear-altruism and inequity-aversion – inthe context of two-person, social dilemmagames. Empirical tests are conducteddrawing on data from experiments andsurveys. We find that the model ofinequity-aversion accounts for asubstantial proportion of the preferencetypes and behavior that are not explainedby the standard model of self-interestedpreferences. In contrast, the altruismmodel does not provide a significantincrease in explanatory power over theinequity-aversion model.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahn, T.K. (2001). Foundations for cooperation in social dilemmas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  2. Ahn, T.K., Ostrom, E., Schmidt, D., Shupp, R., and Walker, J., (2001). Cooperation in PD games: Fear, greed, and history of play. Public Choice 106: 137–155.Google Scholar
  3. Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donation to public goods: A theory of warm glow giving. Economic Journal 100: 464–477.Google Scholar
  4. Bolton, G.E. and Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review 90: 166–193.Google Scholar
  5. Cain, M. (1998). An experimental investigation of motives and information in the prisoner's dilemma game. Advances in Group Processes 15: 133–160.Google Scholar
  6. Cho, K. and Choi, B. (2000). A cross-society study of trust and reciprocity: Korea, Japan, and the U.S. International Studies Review 3: 31–43.Google Scholar
  7. Dougherty, K.L. and Cain, M. (1999). Linear altruism and the 2×2 prisoner's dilemma. Working paper. Miami: Florida International University.Google Scholar
  8. Dufwenberg, M. and Kirchsteiger, G. (1998). A theory of sequential reciprocity. Discussion Paper, CentER, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
  9. Falk, A. and Fischbacher, U. (1998). A theory of reciprocity. Working paper, University of Zürich, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics.Google Scholar
  10. Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114: 817–868.Google Scholar
  11. Hayashi, N., Ostrom, E., Walker, J. and Yamagishi, T. (1999). Reciprocity, trust, and the sense of control: A cross-societal study. Rationality and Society 11: 27–46.Google Scholar
  12. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Rapoport, A. and Chammah, A.M. (1965). Prisoner's dilemma. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  14. Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness in game theory and economics. American Economic Review 83: 1281–1302.Google Scholar
  15. Taylor, M. (1987). The possibility of cooperation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • T.K. Ahn
    • 1
  • Elinor Ostrom
    • 2
  • James M. Walker
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeU.S.A
  2. 2.Department of Political Science Workshop in Political Theory and Policy AnalysisIndiana UniversityBloomingtonU.S.A
  3. 3.Department of Economics, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy AnalysisIndiana UniversityBloomingtonU.S.A

Personalised recommendations