scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal Article•DOI•

Individual Behavior and Group Membership

Gary Charness1, Luca Rigotti2, Aldo Rustichini3•
University of California, Santa Barbara1, University of Pittsburgh2, University of Minnesota3
21 Dec 2006-Social Science Research Network-
TL;DR: In this paper, the saliency of group membership was investigated in two strategic games, the Battle of the Sexes and Prisoner's Dilemma, and it was shown that saliency affects the perception of the environment.
Abstract: People who are members of a group and identify with it behave differently from people who perceive themselves as isolated individuals. This difference depends on two main factors. First, preferences over outcomes change with the degree of identification with the group. Second, this identification depends on the saliency of the group structure. This paper tests these hypotheses and shows that group membership affects preferences over outcomes, and saliency of the group affects the perception of the environment. In two strategic environments, Battle of the Sexes and Prisoner's Dilemma, we create groups by allocating subjects to be Row or Column players. We manipulate the saliency of group membership by letting a player's own group watch as a passive audience as decisions are made, and by making part of the payoff common for members of the group. There is a strong and significant effect of group membership: It increases the aggressive stance of the hosts (people who have their group members in the audience), and reduces the one of the guests. The effect on outcomes depends on the game: In the Battle of the Sexes, the aggressiveness of hosts leads to more coordination; in the Prisoner's Dilemma, it leads to less cooperation. In the first case efficiency is increased, while in the second it is diminished. We also test for differences between in-group and out-group behavior in Prisoner's Dilemma games. In contrast to the minimal-group paradigm of the social-psychology literature, minimal groups do not affect behavior in our strategic environment. We see strong differences between in-group and out-group behavior only when we increase the saliency of group membership by having a degree of common payoffs.

Summary (1 min read)

Jump to: [INSTRUCTIONS (room R)] and [INSTRUCTIONS]

INSTRUCTIONS (room R)

  • They have been randomly divided into two rooms, each with 10 people.
  • These are actual dollars that will be paid in cash.
  • All people in the room (except for the person from the other room) will be able to watch the decider who belongs to their room make his or her choice (however, no verbal comments are permitted).
  • Your green numbers indicate the rounds during which it will be your turn to make a decision in the room where you are now (room R).

INSTRUCTIONS

  • Thank you for participating in this experiment.
  • There are 20 people participating in this session.
  • There will be 10 rounds in this session, and each person will make a decision in each round.
  • In some periods, you will be paired with someone in your color group, while in other periods you will be paired with someone in the other color group.
  • Each person will be making a simultaneous choice between A and B in the following decision matrix:.

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

APPENDIX A: Instructions
(Prisoner’s Dilemma)
INSTRUCTIONS (room R)
Thank you for participating in this experiment. You will receive $5 for your participation, in addition to other
money to be paid as a result of decisions made in the experiment.
There are 20 people participating in this session. They have been randomly divided into two rooms, each with 10
people. You are in room R, this means you are a Row decider.
There will be ten rounds in this session
, and each person will make two decisions, one in each room. You have a
card with a green number and a card with a (different) yellow number. These numbers will determine when and
where you make decisions.
Your green number indicates the round during which it will be your turn to make a decision in the room where
you are now (room R).
Your yellow number indicates the round during which it will be your turn to go to the other room (room C) and
make a decision there.
In each round there are two people making a decision. Each person will be making a simultaneous choice between A
and B in the following decision matrix:
Column
A B
A 5 , 5 1 , 7
Row
B 7 , 1 2 , 2
In each cell, the first number represents the outcome for the Row decider and the second number represents the
outcome for the Column decider.
Thus, if both people choose A, the Row decider receives 5 and the Column decider receives 5. If both people choose
B, the Row decider receives 2 and the Column decider receives 2. If the Row decider chooses A and the Column
decider chooses B, the Row decider receives 1 and the Column decider receives 7. If the Row decider chooses B and
the Column decider chooses A, the Row decider receives 7 and the Column decider receives 1.
The other nine members of each room also have a financial stake in the outcome – each person not making a
decision receives 1/3 of the amount shown for the realized outcome.
Thus, if both deciders choose A, every inactive person in room R receives 5/3 and every inactive person from room
C receives 5/3. If both deciders choose B, every inactive person from room R receives 2/3 and every inactive person
from room C receives 2/3. If the Row decider chooses A and the Column decider chooses B, every inactive person
from room R receives 1/3 and every inactive person from room R receives 7/3. If the Row decider chooses B and the
Column decider chooses A, every inactive person from room R receives 7/3 and every inactive person from room R
receives 1/3.
Each unit is worth $0.50 in actual money (2 units = $1) that will be paid in cash at the end of the experiment.
All people in the room (except for the person from the other room) will be able to watch the decider who belongs to
their room make his or her choice (however, no verbal comments are permitted).
The decision of the person who walks into the room, on the other hand, is made privately.
2
The outcome of the joint decision is immediately revealed to all people in the room.
After the 10 rounds are completed, we will total each person’s earnings (from the outcomes of the two self-made
decisions, as well as the other 18 outcomes), add the $5 show-up fee, and pay each person individually and
privately, using the numbers on your two cards to identify your decisions.
Please feel free to ask questions.
3
(Battle of the Sexes)
INSTRUCTIONS (room R)
Thank you for participating in this experiment. You will receive $5 for your participation, in addition to other
money to be paid as a result of decisions made in the experiment.
There are 20 people participating in this session. They have been randomly divided into two rooms, each with 10
people. You are in room R, this means you are a Row decider.
There will be ten rounds in this session
, and each person will make two decisions, one in each room. You have a
card with a green number and a card with a (different) yellow number. These numbers will determine when and
where you make decisions.
Your green number indicates the round during which it will be your turn to make a decision in the room where
you are now (room R).
Your yellow number indicates the round during which it will be your turn to go to the other room (room C) and
make a decision there.
In each round there are two people making a decision. Each person will be making a simultaneous choice between A
and B in the following decision matrix:
Column
A B
A 3 , 1 0 , 0
Row
B 0 , 0 1 , 3
In each cell, the first number represents the outcome for the decider Row and the second number represents the
outcome for the decider Column.
Thus, if both people choose A, the decider Row receives $3 and the decider Column receives $1. If both people
choose B, the decider Row receives $1 and the decider Column receives $3. If non-identical letters are chosen, each
decider receives 0. These are actual dollars that will be paid in cash.
The other nine members of each room also have a financial stake in the outcome – each person not making a
decision receives 1/3 of the amount shown for the realized outcome.
Thus, if both deciders choose A, every person in room R receives $1 and every person in room C receives $1/3. If
both deciders choose B, every person in room R receives $1/3 and every person in room C receives $1. If non-
identical letters are chosen, everyone receives 0. These are also actual dollars that will be paid in cash.
All people in the room (except for the person from the other room) will be able to watch the decider who belongs to
their room make his or her choice (however, no verbal comments are permitted).
The decision of the person who walks into the room, on the other hand, is made privately.
The outcome of the joint decision is immediately revealed to all people in the room.
After the 10 rounds are completed, we will total each person’s earnings (from the outcomes of the two self-made
decisions, as well as the other 18 outcomes), add the $5 show-up fee, and pay each person individually and
privately, using the numbers on your two cards to identify your decisions.
Please feel free to ask questions.
4
(Battle of the Sexes: No Shared payoff)
INSTRUCTIONS (room R)
Thank you for participating in this experiment. You will receive $8 for your participation, in addition to other
money to be paid as a result of decisions made in the experiment.
There are 20 people participating in this session. They have been randomly divided into two rooms, each with 10
people. You are in room R, this means you are a Row decider.
There will be 20 rounds in this session
, and each person will make four decisions, two in each room. You have a two
card with green numbers and two cards with (different) yellow numbers. These numbers will determine when and
where you make decisions.
Your green numbers indicate the rounds during which it will be your turn to make a decision in the room where
you are now (room R).
Your yellow numbers indicate the rounds during which it will be your turn to go to the other room (room C) and
make a decision there.
In each round there are two people making a decision in each room. Each person will be making a simultaneous
choice between A and B in the following decision matrix:
Column
A B
A 3 , 1 0 , 0
Row
B 0 , 0 1 , 3
In each cell, the first number represents the outcome for the Row decider and the second number represents the
outcome for the Column decider.
Thus, if both people choose A, the Row decider receives 3 and the Column decider receives 1. If both people
choose B, the Row decider receives 1 and the Column decider receives 3. If the Row decider chooses A and the
Column decider chooses B, the Row decider receives 0 and the Column decider receives 0. If the Row decider
chooses B and the Column decider chooses A, the Row decider receives 0 and the Column decider receives 0. The
payment to the other people in the room is not affected by what the two people playing choose to do.
Each unit is worth $1 in actual money that will be paid in cash at the end of the experiment.
All people in the room (except for the person from the other room) will be able to watch the decider who belongs to
their room make his or her choice (however, no verbal comments are permitted).
The decision of the person who walks into the room, on the other hand, is made privately.
The outcome of the joint decision is immediately revealed to all people in the room.
After the 20 rounds are completed, we will total each person’s earnings and pay each person individually and
privately, using the numbers on your four cards to identify your decisions.
Please feel free to ask questions.
5
(Split audience)
INSTRUCTIONS (room R)
Thank you for participating in this experiment. You will receive $5 for your participation, in addition to other
money to be paid as a result of decisions made in the experiment.
There are 32 people participating in this session. They have been randomly divided into two rooms, each with 16
people. You are in room R, this means you are a member of the Row group.
Half of the people in this room will function as the audience and the other half of the people in this room will make
decisions. The people in the audience will remain in Room R, while the deciders will wait in another room until it is
time for their decisions.
There will be eight rounds in this session
, and each non-audience person will make two decisions, one in each room.
Such people will have a card with a green number and a card with a (different) yellow number. These numbers will
determine when and where they shall make decisions.
For the deciders:
The green number indicates the round during which it will be time to make a decision in the room where you are
now (room R).
The yellow number indicates the round during which it will be time to go to the other room (room C) and make a
decision there.
In each round there are two people making a decision in each room. Each person will be making a simultaneous
choice between A and B in the following decision matrix:
Column
A B
A 3 , 1 0 , 0
Row
B 0 , 0 1 , 3
In each cell, the first number represents the outcome for the decider Row and the second number represents the
outcome for the decider Column.
The other 15 members of each room also have a financial stake in the outcome – each person not making a decision
receives 1/3 of the amount shown for the realized outcome.
Thus, if both deciders choose A, the Row decider receives $3 and the Column decider receives $1; every non-
decider in the Row group receives $1 and every non-decider in the Column group receives $1/3. If both deciders
choose B, the Row decider receives $1 and the Column decider receives $3; every non-decider in the Row group
receives $1/3 and every non-decider in the Column group receives $1. If non-identical letters are chosen, everyone
receives 0. These are actual dollars that will be paid in cash.
Each person making a decision in the room will pass, face down, one of the decision cards to the experimenter, who
will reveal the choices when both cards have been passed. All people in the room will be able to observe the
outcome. However, no verbal comments are permitted at any time during the experiment.
After the eight rounds are completed, we will total each person’s earnings, add the $5 show-up fee, and pay each
person individually and privately, using the numbers on your two cards to identify your decisions. Audience
members receive an extra $1.
Please feel free to ask questions.
Citations
More filters
Journal Article•DOI•
An Anger Premium: An Experiment on the Role of Counterpart Emotions in Coordination

[...]

Bing-Kun Jiang, Xiaofei Sophia Pan
01 Jan 2023-Journal of behavioral and experimental economics
TL;DR: In this article , the authors induce happy and angry emotions among MTurk participants and examine how information of their counterparts' emotions affects their aggressive versus accommodating choices and coordination outcomes in the Battle-of-the-Sexes games.
Abstract: Using an online experiment, we induce happy and angry emotions among MTurk participants and examine how information of their counterparts’ emotions affects their aggressive versus accommodating choices and coordination outcomes in the Battle-of-the-Sexes games. We find that participants are significantly more likely to choose the accommodating (aggressive) option if their counterparts are angry (happy), regardless of their induced emotions. Moreover, coordination rates are significantly improved when participants make decisions given counterparts’ emotions. Among the successfully coordinated pairs, angry participants are more likely to choose the aggressive option and thus gain a larger share of the payout, or an anger “premium”. A potential mechanism could be that information of counterparts’ emotions modulates individual beliefs of counterparts’ decisions and thus, influences coordination outcomes.
Journal Article•DOI•
Pro-Social Behavior of Unemployed Individuals -An Experimental Study

[...]

Wiebke Homann1, Levent Yilmaz1, Levent Yilmaz2, Goethe-University Frankfurt•
Goethe University Frankfurt1, University of Innsbruck2
01 May 2011-Social Science Research Network
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigate the pro-social behavior of unemployed individuals and find that the probability of choosing to work voluntarily parallel to unemployment bene-ts increases with solidarity, and that the former shows more solidarity than the latter.
Abstract: We investigate the pro-social behavior of unemployed individuals. First, among the unemployed individuals there exist signi…cant dierences in pro-social behav- ior. Second, we observe two dierent groups; one includes unemployed individuals that work voluntarily parallel to unemployment bene…ts and the other includes un- employed individuals that do not work or are forced to work by the job center. Controlling for income eects, we discover dierences, in the solidarity game, that the former shows more solidarity than the latter. Altogether, behavior of unem- ployed individuals in the experiment is consistent with the decision towards work attitude in reality. Third, the probability of choosing to work voluntarily parallel to unemployment bene…ts increases with solidarity.
Does More US Education Foster Racial Cooperation? Lessons from a Study of Formal Education and Intergroup Behavior

[...]

TL;DR: This paper investigated the link between formal education and intergroup behavior displayed in an economic game, and how these two attitudes mediated this relationship, finding that those with more formal education tend to report less intergroup prejudice towards many outgroups, including racial/ethnic outgroups.
Abstract: Prior research demonstrates that those with more formal education tend to report less intergroup prejudice towards many outgroups, including racial/ethnic outgroups, which is largely mediated by two intergroup ideological attitudes: right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. This study investigated the link between formal education and intergroup behavior displayed in an economic game, and how these two attitudes mediated this relationship. A continuous variant of the Prisoner’s Dilemma game with racial/ethnic ingroup and outgroup members was employed as a behavioral measure because it requires a player to cooperate despite a risk of defection to get better payoffs. Given the null results that emerged, explanations and recommendations for future studies that draw from the lessons of the present study are discussed.
Journal Article•DOI•
Identity, Leadership, and Cooperation: An experimental analysis

[...]

Moumita Roy, Daniel Houser
01 Jan 2023-Social Science Research Network
TL;DR: In this article , a leader may or may not share a social identity with the rest of the group, and they use a theoretical framework and a novel laboratory experimental design to report data from leader-follower games.
Abstract: Effective leaders promote cooperation among their followers. Although many studies have focused on approaches to effective leadership, few have studied how social identity —both the leader’s and the group’s impacts a leader’s effectiveness. We use a theoretical framework and a novel laboratory experimental design to report data from leader-follower games. In the game, the leader may or may not share a social identity with the rest of the group. Our main finding is that ingroup leaders are more effective than outgroup leaders. In particular, ingroup leaders are more likely to suggest greater cooperation among followers, and their suggestions are more likely to be followed. Furthermore, we find that ex-ante outgroup leaders are perceived to be less cooperative. These findings provide evidence of an important challenge to achieving the well-documented organizational benefits that stem from a diverse and inclusive workplace. JEL classification : C71, C92, D91 Keywords— Leadership, Identity, Communication, Cooperation, Laboratory experiment, Public goods game Support for this research was funded by ICES, George Mason University. Declaration of interest: None Economics and Public Policy Area, Amrut Mody School of Management, Ahmedabad University, Ahmedabad, India. (email: moumita.roy@ahduni.edu.in) Department of Economics, George Mason University, Fairfax, USA. (email: dhouser@gmu.edu)
Journal Article•DOI•
Social Identity and Group Contests

[...]

Henrik W. Zaunbrecher1, Arno Riedl•
Maastricht University1
22 May 2016-Social Science Research Network
TL;DR: This article explored the causal effect of social identity on the propensity to engage in group conflict and found that social identity with the own group implies higher investments in Tullock contests and that induced social identity does increase group closeness but does not increase conflict investments.
Abstract: Social identity has been shown to successfully enhance cooperation and effort in cooperation and coordination games. Little is known about the causal effect of social identity on the propensity to engage in group conflict. In this paper we explore theoretically and experimentally whether social identity increases investments in group contests. We show theoretically that increased social identity with the own group implies higher investments in Tullock contests. Empirically we find that induced social identity does increase group closeness but does not increase conflict investments.

Cites background or methods from "Individual Behavior and Group Membe..."

  • ...Charness et al. (2006) show that making group membership salient significantly increases the choice of an aggressive stance in the battle of the sexes and leads to more defections in the prisoners dilemma game....

    [...]

  • ...7 4The paintings are the same as in Chen and Li (2009) and Chen and Chen (2011): Gebirgsbildung, 1924, by Klee; Subdued Glow, 1928, by Kandinsky; Dreamy Improvisation, 1913, by Kandinsky; Warning of the Ships, 1917, by Klee; Dry-Cool Garden, 1921, by Klee; Landscape with Red Splashes I, 1913, by Kandinsky; Gentle Ascent, 1934, by Kandinsky; A Hoffmannesque Tale, 1921, by Klee; Development in Brown, 1933, by Kandinsky; The Vase, 1938, by Klee. 5Monument in Fertile Country, 1929, by Klee; Start, 1928, by Kandinsky. 6This variant of the Klee and Kandinsky task was chosen based on findings by Chen and Li (2009) who compare group assignment based on picture preferences and random groups and chat/no chat treatments....

    [...]

  • ...A social preference function that depends on social identity similar to the utility functions used by Chen and Li (2009) and Chen and Chen (2011) is applied to the game to derive equilibrium solutions and comparative statics results. Social identity is induced by using Chen and Chen (2011)’s variant of the Klee-Kandinsky painting task to increase group contributions in a group contest game. By letting subjects solve a task with group communication groups are made salient but this fails to enhance group contributions. Group contributions are not significantly different from the control treatment which is not in line with the theory and previous findings on the positive effect of social identity on effort and contribution in coordination and public good games. Group contributions in the social identity treatment seem to follow a negative trend that is not prevalent in the control treatment. Looking at the individual contribution decision of subjects supports the finding that contributions in the social identity treatment are decreasing at a faster rate than in the control treatment. There is no indication that chatting or closeness have an effect on individual contributions. The reason for the negative trend in the social identity treatment is open for speculation. It could be argued that subjects have higher expectations in other group members after bonding with them in the Klee and Kandinsky task and are than more disappointed when those expectations are not met, leading to more free-riding. The theoretical model employed in this paper suggests that if beliefs are introduced and subjects believe that other members of the own group increase contributions, it would be a best response to decrease the own contributions. An increase in contributions due to a higher weight on the payoffs of other group members could than be canceled out by the belief that other group members contribute more and the aggregated effect could become negative. Furthermore, if subjects were to believe that the members of the other group are completely unselfish and are also unselfish themselves, the comparative statics suggest that equilibrium contributions would not change with changes in social identity. This highlights the need for more research of the interaction of beliefs and social identity and especially of situations in which changes in beliefs might cause an effect that is opposed to the expected effect of a change in social preferences. The social identity manipulation that is employed in the study closely follows the design employed by Chen and Li (2009) and Chen and Chen (2011) who found a significant effect of identity on behavior....

    [...]

  • ...A social preference function that depends on social identity similar to the utility functions used by Chen and Li (2009) and Chen and Chen (2011) is applied to the game to derive equilibrium solutions and comparative statics results. Social identity is induced by using Chen and Chen (2011)’s variant of the Klee-Kandinsky painting task to increase group contributions in a group contest game....

    [...]

  • ...7 4The paintings are the same as in Chen and Li (2009) and Chen and Chen (2011): Gebirgsbildung, 1924, by Klee; Subdued Glow, 1928, by Kandinsky; Dreamy Improvisation, 1913, by Kandinsky; Warning of the Ships, 1917, by Klee; Dry-Cool Garden, 1921, by Klee; Landscape with Red Splashes I, 1913, by Kandinsky; Gentle Ascent, 1934, by Kandinsky; A Hoffmannesque Tale, 1921, by Klee; Development in Brown, 1933, by Kandinsky; The Vase, 1938, by Klee....

    [...]

References
More filters
An integrative theory of intergroup conflict

[...]

Henri Tajfel, John C. Turner1•
Australian National University1
01 Jan 2001

14,106 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory.

[...]

John C. Turner, Michael A. Hogg, Penelope J. Oakes, Stephen Reicher, Margaret Wetherell 
01 Jul 1989-Contemporary Sociology
TL;DR: In this paper, a self-categorization theory is proposed to discover the social group and the importance of social categories in the analysis of social influence, and the Salience of social Categories is discussed.
Abstract: 1. Introducing the Problem: Individual and Group 2. Rediscovering the Social Group 3. A Self-Categorization Theory 4. The Analysis of Social Influence 5. Social Identity 6. The Salience of Social Categories 7. Social Identity and Group Polarization 8. Crowd Behaviour as Social Action 9. Conclusion.

8,872 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Africa's Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions

[...]

William Easterly1, Ross Levine2•
World Bank1, University of Virginia2
01 Nov 1997-Quarterly Journal of Economics
TL;DR: This article showed that ethnic diversity helps explain cross-country differences in public policies and other economic indicators in Sub-Saharan Africa, and that high ethnic fragmentation explains a significant part of most of these characteristics.
Abstract: Explaining cross-country differences in growth rates requires not only an understanding of the link between growth and public policies, but also an understanding of why countries choose different public policies. This paper shows that ethnic diversity helps explain cross-country differences in public policies and other economic indicators. In the case of Sub-Saharan Africa, economic growth is associated with low schooling, political instability, underdeveloped financial systems, distorted foreign exchange markets, high government deficits, and insufficient infrastructure. Africa's high ethnic fragmentation explains a significant part of most of these characteristics.

5,648 citations

"Individual Behavior and Group Membe..." refers background in this paper

  • ...1 Some notable exceptions include Akerlof and Kranton (2000), Alesina et alii (2003), and Easterly and Levine (1997)....

    [...]

Book•
The Principles of Scientific Management

[...]

Frederick Winslow Taylor
01 Jan 1911
TL;DR: The Taylor System as discussed by the authors was developed as a system for increasing productivity in industry, and its principles have been applied to all kinds of large-scale enterprises, including operations with departments and agencies of the federal government.
Abstract: This brief essay by the founder of scientific management has served for nearly a century as a primer for administrators and for students of managerial techniques. Although scientific management was developed primarily as a system for increasing productivity in industry, its principles have been applied to all kinds of large-scale enterprises, including operations with departments and agencies of the federal government. It is in this volume that Frederick Winslow Taylor gave the theory of scientific management its clearest airing. Born in 1856, Taylor began work at age eighteen as an apprentice to a pattern-maker and as a machinist. A few years later he joined the Midvale Steel Company as a laborer, and in eight years rose to chief engineer. During this time he developed and tested what he called the "task system," which became known as the Taylor System and eventually as scientific management. He made careful experiments to determine the best way of performing each operation and the amount of time it required, analyzing the materials, tools, and work sequence, and establishing a clear division of labor between management and workers. His experiments laid the groundwork for the principles that are expounded in this essay, which was first published in 1911.

5,361 citations

Journal Article•DOI•
Economics and Identity

[...]

George A. Akerlof1, Rachel E. Kranton2•
University of California, Berkeley1, University of Maryland, College Park2
01 Aug 2000-Quarterly Journal of Economics
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors consider how identity, a person's sense of self, affects economic outcomes and incorporate the psychology and sociology of identity into an economic model of behavior, and construct a simple game-theoretic model showing how identity can affect individual interactions.
Abstract: This paper considers how identity, a person's sense of self, affects economic outcomes. We incorporate the psychology and sociology of identity into an economic model of behavior. In the utility function we propose, identity is associated with different social categories and how people in these categories should behave. We then construct a simple game-theoretic model showing how identity can affect individual interactions. The paper adapts these models to gender discrimination in the workplace, the economics of poverty and social exclusion, and the household division of labor. In each case, the inclusion of identity substantively changes conclusions of previous economic analysis.

4,825 citations

Related Papers (5)
Group Identity and Social Preferences

[...]

01 Feb 2009-The American Economic Review
Yan Chen, Sherry Xin Li
Economics and Identity

[...]

01 Aug 2000-Quarterly Journal of Economics
George A. Akerlof, Rachel E. Kranton
z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments

[...]

07 Feb 2007-Experimental Economics
Urs Fischbacher
The Impact of Group Membership on Cooperation and Norm Enforcement: Evidence Using Random Assignment to Real Social Groups

[...]

01 Mar 2006-Social Science Research Network
Lorenz Goette, Lorenz Goette, Lorenz Goette, David Huffman, David Huffman, Stephan Meier, Stephan Meier, Stephan Meier 
Social categorization and intergroup behaviour

[...]

01 Apr 1971-European Journal of Social Psychology
Henri Tajfel, Michael Billig, R. P. Bundy, Claude Flament 
Frequently Asked Questions (1)
Q1. What are the contributions in this paper?

In this paper, if both people choose A, the Row decider receives 5 and the Column deciders receives 5.