Cooperation and coordination across cultures and contexts
Individual, sociocultural, and contextual factors jointly influence decision making in the volunteer's dilemma game
Bibliographic Data
What factors promote or hinder volunteering within organizations and groups? This paper simultaneously explores the impact of individual, contextual, and sociocultural variables on decision making in a special type of social dilemma: the volunteer's dilemma game (VDG). The VDG provides a controlled experimental method for studying volunteering behaviors in an anonymous interactive environment. We developed six variations of the VDG and administered them to economics students in five different cultures ( N total = 603). Among other things, these VDGs varied whether the potential benefits of volunteering were certain or uncertain. Although the overall level of volunteering did not vary substantially across most cultural groups, we found that culture interacted with the size and (un)certainty of the benefits associated with volunteering, to influence volunteering decisions. We also found that religiosity (but not religious affiliation per se) increases volunteering and that men are less likely to volunteer when the returns to doing so are certain. These results extend our knowledge of behaviors in the VDG, and their potential drivers, with clear implications for understanding how culture, individual characteristics, and context jointly influence prosocial behavior and coordination
Context (archaeology · Dilemma · Geography · Prosocial behavior · Religiosity · Social dilemma · Social environment · Sociocultural evolution · Sociology · Culture, Economy, and Development Studies · Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation · Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies · Psychology · Social Psychology
Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation
A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes
Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests
Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions
Chapter 57 Differences in the Economic Decisions of Men and Women
Gender and Culture
Chapter 113 Men, Women and Risk Aversion
Gender Differences in Risk Aversion and Ambiguity Aversion
Gender Differences in Accepting and Receiving Requests for Tasks with Low Promotability
Regret in Decision Making
Bowling alone
Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms
The weirdest people in the world?
Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan
Religion and the Individual
Gender, Power, and Communication in Human Relationships
Gender, Nature, and Nurture
“Take One for the Team!” Individual Heterogeneity and the Emergence of Latent Norms in a Volunteer's Dilemma
The bystander-effect
Emergency Helping and Religious Behavior
Study of Values as a Predictor of Helping Behavior
Cultural Values and Volunteering
The Martyrdom Effect
The Psychology of Waste
Anticipated regret, expected feedback and behavioral decision making
Does religion foster generosity
Religion, ethnicity and cooperation
Dispositional and Organizational Influences on Sustained Volunteerism
A lady in distress
Private e-mail requests and the diffusion of responsibility
Incomplete Information and Timing in the Volunteer's Dilemma
Volunteer's Dilemma
Experiments with N-Person Social Traps I
Cost Sharing in a Volunteer's Dilemma
Asymmetry and Timing in the Volunteer's Dilemma
Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies
Moral character in the workplace
Bystander intervention in emergencies
Group Size and One-Shot Collective Action
Religion, Context, and Constraint toward Strangers
Prosocial Behavior
Gender Differences in Preferences
Risk Preferences and Gender Differences in Religiousness
Going to Hell in Asia
Does religious belief promote prosociality? A critical examination
Gender differences in risk taking
Sex, Fear, and Greed
Risk and Religion
Are Risk-Taking Persons Less Religious? Risk Preference, Religious Affiliation, and Religious Participation in Taiwan
Are Religious People More Prosocial? A Quasi-Experimental Study with Madrasah Pupils in a Rural Community in India
Religious Ritual and Cooperation
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,6 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |