Skip to main content
Book cover

Rationality in Social Science pp 45–66Cite as

“Das Modell ist dafür nicht geeignet!” (“The Model is not Suitable for This!”): The Model of Frame Selection and a Corrective Replication of the Findings in the Fehr-Gächter Experiments on the Development of Cooperation in Public Good Situations

  • 159 Accesses

Abstract

This paper addresses the question of whether the model of frame selection (MFS) is more capable of explaining the findings in Fehr and Gächter’s classic experiments on the effects of reciprocity and punishment than rational choice theory (RCT). The focus is on results on the replication of the original experiment and some modifications. The modifications refer to the extension or repetition of certain sequences with and without punishment. This was intended to address three questions: Are there effects of the salience of a cooperative framing in the start, even when cooperation decays in the absence of punishment? Does cooperative framing strengthen with the extension of the punishment phase by priming? Are there restart effects such that even a simple repetition of the same game after cooperation decays in a phase without the possibility of punishment causes cooperation to rise again? In fact, all three effects are observed. In a final step, these effects are reconstructed and compared against the background of the two approaches, MFS and RCT. The salience and priming effects are easily explained with the MFS, while RCT can only come up with an explanation given quite implausible additional assumptions, for instance with respect to reputation effects in finite iterated games. No approach provides an obvious explanation for the restart effects.

Keyword

  • Fehr-Gächter experiments
  • Reciprocity and punishment
  • Model of frame selection
  • Salience and priming
  • Restart effects

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-33536-6_4
  • Chapter length: 22 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-658-33536-6
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Learn about institutional subscriptions
Fig. 1
Fig. 2

(source: own research)

Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. 1.

    As in the reanalysis of the F&G experiments by Esser (2018), the contributions in the first round of the first sequence were used to classify the subjects into the categories of selfish and reciprocals. This procedure would be in line with the idea of revealed preferences as one of the principles of RCT still remaining despite the extensions. During the reanalysis of the F&G experiments, nothing else was possible since there were no additional surveys of the motives. The procedure was therefore consciously adopted for the replicating comparison. The data from the ELFE project also contain information about the motives from follow-up surveys. In principle, it would also be possible to refer to this information.

References

  • Albert, G. 2020. Kumulative Erkenntnis in einer realistischen Soziologie. Zeitschrift für Theoretische Soziologie 9. In press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J.A. 1988. Why free ride? Strategies and learning in public goods experiments. Journal of Public Economics 37:291–304.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Betz, D., Esser, H., and C. Biniossek. 2020. Dataset feedback, punishment, and framing in 30 rounds public goods experiments. https://doi.org/10.23663/x2648

  • Bordalo, P., N. Gennaioli, and A. Schleifer. 2012. Salience theory of choice under risk. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 127:1243–1285.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, L. 2020. Reziprozität: Grundform der sozialen, ökonomischen und politischen Ordnung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Croson, R.T.A. 1996. Partners and strangers revisited. Economics Letters 53:25–32.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann, A., and T. Voss. 2008. Soziale Normen und Reziprozität. Die Bedeutung sozialer Motive für die Rational-Choice-Erklärung sozialer Normen. In Rational Choice: Theoretische Analysen und empirische Resultate. Festschrift für Karl-Dieter Opp zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. A. Diekmann, K. Eichner, P. Schmidt, and T. Voss, 83–100. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dufwenberg, M., S. Gächter, and H. Hennig-Schmidt. 2011. The framing of games and the psychology of play. Games and Economic Behavior 73:459–478.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Ellingsen, T., M. Johannesson, J. Mollerstrom, and S. Munkhammar. 2012. Social framing effects: Preferences or beliefs? Games and Economic Behavior 76:117–130.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Esser, H. 2009a. Erwiderung: Bringing society (back) in! In Hartmut Essers Erklärende Soziologie. Kontroversen und Perspektiven, ed. P. Hill, F. Kalter, J. Kopp, C. Kroneberg, and R. Schnell, 255–286. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser, H. 2009b. Erwiderung: “Goals”, “Frames” und “Rational Choice”. In Hartmut Essers Erklärende Soziologie. Kontroversen und Perspektiven, ed. P. Hill, F. Kalter, J. Kopp, C. Kroneberg, and R. Schnell, 107–131. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser, H. 2017. When prediction fails. Reactions of rational choice theory and behavioral economics to the unexpected appearance of framing effects. In Social dilemmas, institutions and the evolution of cooperation, Festschrift for Andreas Diekmann, ed. B. Jann, and W. Przepiorka, 505–526. Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser, H. 2018. Sanktionen, Reziprozität und die symbolische Konstruktion der Kooperations-„Gemeinschaft“. Ein theoretischer Vergleich und empirischer Test von Rational-Choice-Theorie und dem Modell der Frame-Selektion anhand von Befunden und Daten aus der experimentellen Spieltheorie zur Erklärung der Bereitstellung von Kollektivgütern. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 47:8–28.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Esser, H. 2020. Anreize, Kognition, Kultur und die symbolische Choreographie der Gesellschaft. Zum Vorschlag der (der eher) unfreundlichen Übernahme der Soziologie durch eine abermals erweiterte Rational-Choice-Theorie bei Herbert Gintis. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 47:8–28.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Esser, H., and C. Kroneberg. 2015. An integrative theory of action: The model of frame selection. In Order on the edge of chaos: Social psychology and the problem of social order, ed. E.J. Lawler, S.R. Thye, and J. Yoon, 63–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Esser, H., and C. Kroneberg. 2020. Das Modell der Frame-Selektion. In Rational choice, ed. Andreas Tutić, 308–324. Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., and S. Gächter. 1999. Cooperation in public goods experiments. Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich: Working Paper 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., and S. Gächter. 2000. Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. American Economic Review 90:980–994.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., and H. Gintis. 2007. Human motivation and social cooperation: Experimental and analytical foundations. Annual Review of Sociology 33:43–64.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., and K.M. Schmidt. 2006. The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism – Experimental evidence and new theories. In Handbook of the economics of giving, altruism and reciprocity, vol. 1, ed. S.-C. Kolm, and J.M. Ythier, 615–691. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischbacher, U. 2007. z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics 10:171–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gintis, H. 2000. Beyond homo economicus. Evidence from experimental economics. Ecological Economics 25:311–322.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gintis, H. 2017. Individuality and entanglement. The moral and material basis of social life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Greiner, B. 2015. Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association 1:114–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiner, R.A. 1983. The origin of predictable behavior. American Economic Review 73:560–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, B., C. Thöni, and S. Gächter. 2006. Antisocial punishment across societies. Science 319:1362–1367.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kay, A.C., S.C. Wheeler, J.A. Bargh, and L. Ross. 2004. Material priming: The influence of mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 95:83–96.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Liberman, V., S.M. Samuels, and L. Ross. 2004. The name of the game: Predictive power of reputations versus situational labels in determining prisoner’s dilemma game moves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30:1175–1185.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, J.D. 1998. Toward a role-theoretic conception of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 104:92–125.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Opp, K.D. 2019. Die Theorie rationalen Handelns, das Modell der Frame-Selektion und die Wirkungen von Bestrafungen auf Kooperation. Eine Diskussion von Hartmut Essers Erklärung der Ergebnisse eines Experiments von Fehr und Gächter (2000, 2002). Zeitschrift für Soziologie 48:97–115.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Raub, W., and T. Voss. 2009. Lob des Modellbaus. In Hartmut Essers Erklärende Soziologie. Kontroversen und Perspektiven, ed. P. Hill, F. Kalter, J. Kopp, C. Kroneberg, and R. Schnell, 149–180. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tutić, A. 2015. Warum denn eigentlich nicht? Zur Axiomatisierung soziologischer Handlungstheorie. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 44:83–98.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tutić, A. 2020. Die Dual-Process-Perspektive in der interdisziplinären Handlungstheorie: Stand und Perspektiven. Working Paper, Institut für Soziologie, Universität Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–458.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author thanks Dipl. Psych. Friederike Haiser for translating this manuscript from German.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Mannheim, Mannheim, Deutschland

    Hartmut Esser

Authors
  1. Hartmut Esser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hartmut Esser .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Priv. Doz. Ivar Krumpal

  2. Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Prof. Dr. Werner Raub

  3. Universität Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Dr. Andreas Tutić

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Esser, H. (2021). “Das Modell ist dafür nicht geeignet!” (“The Model is not Suitable for This!”): The Model of Frame Selection and a Corrective Replication of the Findings in the Fehr-Gächter Experiments on the Development of Cooperation in Public Good Situations. In: Krumpal, I., Raub, W., Tutić, A. (eds) Rationality in Social Science. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33536-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-33536-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-33535-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-33536-6

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)