 Peer punishment of acts of omission versus acts of commission in give and take social dilemmasAbhijit Ramalingam, Antonio Morales () and James Walker Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2019, vol. 164, issue C, 133-147 Abstract: This study brings together two strands of experimental literature, “Give and Take” versions of strategically and payoff isomorphic linear public goods games and the effectiveness of peer punishment in promoting cooperation in finitely repeated fixed-group game settings. We find in the absence of the punishment institution, cooperation declines more rapidly in the Take game setting than the Give game setting. With punishment opportunities, however, cooperation increases more rapidly in the Take game setting. The net effect is that punishment leads to increases in efficiency in the Take game setting, but not in the Give game setting. This result is linked to the fact that low contributors in their respective groups are targeted for punishment more frequently in the Take game than in the Give game, a behavior that is consistent with acts of commission (taking) being judged more harshly than actions of omission (not giving). Keywords: Peer punishment; Omission vs commission; Isomorphic social dilemmas; Experiment; Reciprocal preferences (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:164:y:2019:i:c:p:133-147 DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2019.05.033 Access Statistics for this article Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization is currently edited by Houser, D. and Puzzello, D. More articles in Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization from Elsevier |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.