This presentation by J. Haucap, C. Heldman and H. A. Rau summarises the key findings of their research paper on Gender and collusion submitted to the OECD project on Gender inclusive competition policy. It was delivered during a workshop held virtually on 7 October 2021.
More materials on the topic can be found at http://oe.cd/gicp.
This presentation was uploaded with the authors’ consent.
PROFESSOR JOEL BILLIEUX - HOW CAN WE CONCEPTUALISE BEHAVIORAL ADDICTION WITHO...iCAADEvents
Following the recent changes to the diagnostic category for addictive disorders in DSM-5, it is urgent to clarify what constitutes behavioural addiction to have a clear direction for future research and classi cation. However, in the years following the release of DSM-5, an expanding body of research has increasingly classi ed engagement in a wide range of common behaviours and leisure activities as possible behavioural addiction, resulting in pathologising non-clinically relevant behaviours. In this talk, Professor Billieux will present an operational definition of behavioural addiction together with a number of exclusion criteria, to avoid pathologising common behaviours.
This presentation by J. Haucap, C. Heldman and H. A. Rau summarises the key findings of their research paper on Gender and collusion submitted to the OECD project on Gender inclusive competition policy. It was delivered during a workshop held virtually on 7 October 2021.
More materials on the topic can be found at http://oe.cd/gicp.
This presentation was uploaded with the authors’ consent.
PROFESSOR JOEL BILLIEUX - HOW CAN WE CONCEPTUALISE BEHAVIORAL ADDICTION WITHO...iCAADEvents
Following the recent changes to the diagnostic category for addictive disorders in DSM-5, it is urgent to clarify what constitutes behavioural addiction to have a clear direction for future research and classi cation. However, in the years following the release of DSM-5, an expanding body of research has increasingly classi ed engagement in a wide range of common behaviours and leisure activities as possible behavioural addiction, resulting in pathologising non-clinically relevant behaviours. In this talk, Professor Billieux will present an operational definition of behavioural addiction together with a number of exclusion criteria, to avoid pathologising common behaviours.
Slides from the University of Michigan Investing in Ability 2015 series of events. The presenter is from Wayne State, and we are hosting the slides here for the convenience of our audience.
Scientific Method to Hire Great Scrum MastersPavel Dabrytski
Hiring new associates is an inevitable path to growth for the majority of companies. But hiring is always associated with risks. What if the company gets the wrong person on board? The costs of dismissing a non-performer and repeating the recruitment process are high. Many organizations are constantly on the lookout for better ways to interview and hire people. In this paper, I suggest a statistical (procedural) method for interviewing candidates that improves the chance of selecting the best candidate for the job.
Workplace bullying demonstrates a lack of which one of the three types of organizational justice?
What aspects of motivation might workplace bullying reduce? For example, are there likely to be effects on an employee’s self-efficacy? If so, what might those effects be?
If you were a victim of workplace bullying, what steps would you take to reduce its occurrence? What strategies would be most effective? Least effective? What would you do if one of your colleagues was a victim?
What factors do you believe contribute to workplace bullying? Are bullies a product of the situations, or do they have flawed personalities? What situations and what personality factors might contribute to the presence of bullies?
An insight into counterproductive work behaviordeshwal852
The concept of CWB in recent years has generated high interest among organizational researchers and practitioners because of its pervasiveness in organizations. Organizations want and need employees who
will do those things that aren’t in any job description. And the evidence indicates that those organizations
that have such employees outperform those that don’t. Dissatisfied employee is more likely to be
motivated to engage in counterproductive work practices such as breaking organizational rules, withholding effort, stealing, taking long breaks and working slowly. These acts should be curtailed as it obstructs the success of the organization. The present paper makes an attempt to discuss counterproductive work practices with reference to pertinent literature.
Slides from the University of Michigan Investing in Ability 2015 series of events. The presenter is from Wayne State, and we are hosting the slides here for the convenience of our audience.
Scientific Method to Hire Great Scrum MastersPavel Dabrytski
Hiring new associates is an inevitable path to growth for the majority of companies. But hiring is always associated with risks. What if the company gets the wrong person on board? The costs of dismissing a non-performer and repeating the recruitment process are high. Many organizations are constantly on the lookout for better ways to interview and hire people. In this paper, I suggest a statistical (procedural) method for interviewing candidates that improves the chance of selecting the best candidate for the job.
Workplace bullying demonstrates a lack of which one of the three types of organizational justice?
What aspects of motivation might workplace bullying reduce? For example, are there likely to be effects on an employee’s self-efficacy? If so, what might those effects be?
If you were a victim of workplace bullying, what steps would you take to reduce its occurrence? What strategies would be most effective? Least effective? What would you do if one of your colleagues was a victim?
What factors do you believe contribute to workplace bullying? Are bullies a product of the situations, or do they have flawed personalities? What situations and what personality factors might contribute to the presence of bullies?
An insight into counterproductive work behaviordeshwal852
The concept of CWB in recent years has generated high interest among organizational researchers and practitioners because of its pervasiveness in organizations. Organizations want and need employees who
will do those things that aren’t in any job description. And the evidence indicates that those organizations
that have such employees outperform those that don’t. Dissatisfied employee is more likely to be
motivated to engage in counterproductive work practices such as breaking organizational rules, withholding effort, stealing, taking long breaks and working slowly. These acts should be curtailed as it obstructs the success of the organization. The present paper makes an attempt to discuss counterproductive work practices with reference to pertinent literature.
Programmation Open Bidouille Camp x84 du 26 mars 2016 - Courthézon, VaucluseAlan McCullagh
Vous trouverez ici le programme détaillé de notre événement Open Bidouille Camp x84 qui se tient à la Salle Polyvalente de Courthézon, Vaucluse (84), PACA, France - Samedi 26 Mars 2016 de 9h à 20h30
As a professional, you know that success is a groups activity. Connectors understand that by helping others achieve, they never have to worry about their own success.
INVESTIGATE THE ROLE OF IMPULSIVITY IN DECISIONS MAKING DURING GAMBLING TASK:...Gyan Prakash
The aim of the current study is to understand impulsivity, reward and loss sensitivity in decision making using Iowa Gambling Task and investigate how impulsivity affects decision- making using BIS/BAS scale. We investigate how the personality trait determines decision making using NEO-FFI scale. Method: We assessed 130 participants for conducting two types of experiment (1) Choice Behavior Test is conducted with the help of Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) on the computer screen.(2) Personality Test is conducted with the help of Behavior Inhibition system and Behavior Approach System (BIS/BAS), NEO-F FI( NEO-Five Factor Inventory) scale and Rational-Experiential Inventory (REI).Results: The result indicated that participants who were low on impulsivity fared worst on IGT task compared to the participants who were high on impulsivity. Similar results were demonstrated for personality traits and information processing styles. The results imply that personality traits determine decision-making process. Similarly, information processing styles evaluate preferences for information processing that determine the decisions making and Impulsivity affects decision making
Running Head INTRODUCTION SECTION AND HYPOTHESISINTRODUCTION SE.docxjeanettehully
Running Head: INTRODUCTION SECTION AND HYPOTHESIS
INTRODUCTION SECTION AND HYPOTHESIS 3
Introduction Section and Hypothesis
Irving Toruno
Florida International University
Social media holds out the promise of connection. Looking at platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram among others, people of different ages, gender and race create networks of friends which helps to get updates on daily activities and build a sense of community. On such a platform as Facebook, it’s usual that a person will have hundreds of friends connected to. However, this is different from real life where a person has very few friends who can be relied on. Many people including Pope Francis and singer Selena Gomez have always warned people on spending too much time on social media by refereeing to it as detrimental (Hunter 2019). Pope Francis argues that it’s not healthy to rely on the internet to know what’s happening in the world but instead people should walk door to door and talk to each other.
On the contrary, young people have argued that social media provides a real connection. Research showed that social media was helpful to kids as they can connect, share and learn online. Sites such as twitter shed light on kids on the important issues across the world as well as exposing them to people from different parts. This enlightens their thoughts as they respond positively to such tweets. Social media helps teens strengthen friendship, get a sense of belonging and have online acceptance (Kampf 2018). The purpose of this research is to investigate if social media made people more or less connected having in mind all the arguments on the positive and negative impacts of social media.
Understanding whether social media made people more or less connected is a concept that requires thorough research as the pros and cons outweigh each other. Considering the advantages of social media, we find that people can find and meet online; business people can reach clients directly without the involvement of third-party, advertising, and search engine optimization on companies is made easier. On the disadvantages, social media leads to cheating and relationship issues, deaths as people to copy what they see on the internet, drugs and alcohol abuse among other things. To clearly understand the effect of social media on people’s connectivity, more research needs to be done on the users of the internet.
This research project is purposely made for teens and young adults who are mostly involved in social media. Despite social media being a platform for everyone even the children, young adults and teens are the victims of social media. According to statistics, 93% of online users are young adults aged 18-29 who compete equally with teens aged 12-17 as compared to 39% adults aged 30 and above (Staksrud 2016). Through the internet, these people connect with friends on different platforms who help each other in different ways. Some of the internet users are students who connec ...
Speaker: Paul Toro
How do we end youth homelessness? This workshop will summarize research and examine an emerging typology that can be used to inform and appropriately scale interventions to end youth homelessness. Presenters will describe strategies that are working to help young people reconnect with family and other caring adults when appropriate, and prepare to transition successfully to independent living with housing and supportive services.
BBA 3451, Organizational Theory and Behavior 1 CourseMargaritoWhitt221
BBA 3451, Organizational Theory and Behavior 1
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit II
Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:
2. Discuss human aspects of an organization.
2.1 Identify the five types of individual behavior in organizations.
2.2 Describe the Big Five personality dimensions and how they relate to individual behavior in
organizations.
2.3 Discuss the ways to improve perceptions in organizational situations.
Course/Unit
Learning Outcomes
Learning Activity
2.1
Unit Lesson
Chapter 2: Individual Behavior, Personality, and Values, pp. 32–44, 45–51
Chapter 3: Perceiving Ourselves and Others in Organizations
Unit II Podcast
Unit II Essay
2.2
Unit Lesson
Chapter 2: Individual Behavior, Personality, and Values, pp. 32–44, 45–51
Unit II Podcast
Unit II Essay
2.3
Unit Lesson
Chapter 2: Individual Behavior, Personality, and Values, pp. 32–44, 45–51
Chapter 3: Perceiving Ourselves and Others in Organizations
Unit II Podcast
Unit II Essay
Reading Assignment
Chapter 2: Individual Behavior, Personality, and Values, pp. 32–44, 45–51
Chapter 3: Perceiving Ourselves and Others in Organizations
Click here to access the Unit II Podcast. (Click here to access the transcript of the Unit II Podcast.)
Unit Lesson
In the podcast below, Chantell Cooley, Dayna Fuller, and Caroline Walters discuss ways in which personality
tests can be used within the workplace. Dayna, Chantell, and Caroline share their experiences with you as
well as helpful tips.
Click here to access the Unit II Podcast. (Click here to access the transcript of the Unit II Podcast.)
UNIT II STUDY GUIDE
Individual Behaviors and Perceiving
Ourselves and Others
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-64050504_1
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-64050886_1
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-64050504_1
https://online.columbiasouthern.edu/bbcswebdav/xid-64050886_1
BBA 3451, Organizational Theory and Behavior 2
UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
Individual Behavior, Personality, and Values
To begin this unit, let us think about two entities: a large corporation comprised of hundreds of people and a
major league sports team (e.g., a hockey team comprised of 25 players or a professional football team
comprised of 80 players). These
represent a good cross section of
organizational behavior. These
units face the same individual
types of behavior. Refer to the
MARS model shown in Exhibit 2.1
on page 32 of the textbook;
MARS represents motivation,
ability, role perceptions, and
situational factors (McShane &
Von Glinow, 2018). Looking at
each example in the model, they
all contribute to the five types of
individual behavior in the
workplace.
Task Performance
Within a corporation, employees need to add value to gain market share, increase growth, maintain a
competitive advantage, and control cost for their company. Also, their task perfor ...
Human GeographyWelcome to week 5 of your course. This discussi.docxeugeniadean34240
Human Geography:
Welcome to week 5 of your course. This discussion question will help you prepare for your CLA2 paper and final CLA2 PPT and as such will have a fair amount of detail. Read the CLA2 assignment listed in week 8 of the course. Then please provide an outline that itemizes the concepts that you will include in your CLA2 paper and final PPT. Please be sure to include concepts learned in the course and information (findings, conclusions) from your PA1 and CLA1 papers. Provide some brief details for each item that is outlined. Please keep in mind that you should have placeholders for material not yet covered in lecture from weeks 6 and 7. Here is an itemized list that summarizes the requirements of this DQ (include every item in the bullet point list below, or you will not receive full credit):
1. Outline that itemizes concepts learned in the course
2. Include information (findings, conclusions) from your PA1 and CLA1
3. Brief details for each item that is outlined
4. Placeholders for material not yet covered
This is my PA1:
Different scholars propose several articulate, authoritative, and thorough review concerning the application and actual nature of models and theories related to diffusion in a sociological point of view. It is essential to note that the aspect of human culture is a complex system made up of values. The aspect of cultural values implies specific ideas, items, and concepts that get either negative or positive connotation. This paper analyses some of the choices or behaviors in human life influenced by diffusion.
Responsibility and diffusion: this is the first choice/behavior influenced by diffusion, other scholars call it diffusion of responsibilities, which is phenomenon influenced by human psychology and it is where a person displays less chances of taking an action in presence of people. For many years, social psychology recognizes the aspect that human behavior regarding social responsibility is significantly influenced by the presence of people. The simple way to understand this is attributed to the ‘bystander effect’ where the probability of people taking actions to assists other in case of an emergency is low especially if there are many people in that place, Beyer (2017).
Another common example regarding responsibility is the “social loafing” effect. Although people strive to work as a team with a primary objective of achieving a similar goal, the likelihood that individual will put in less efforts on average is always high. The possibilities of taking a risk at an individual level are always low, but when working or deciding on something as a group, the possibilities of taking risks are always high. These examples shows that a person’s behavior changes within the social context. The presence of people develops that virtue of becoming less responsible.
Conformity: the changes in personal behavior or opinion to conform to what the rest of the group or team agrees. In most cases, th.
ACMP Pacific NW Chapter - Behavioral Insights and Neurochange - Nov 2017alistaln
Full PowerPoint Download Link (slide deck contains notes with full references): https://1drv.ms/p/s!Algw2-ojrLE8y30Denn8p68m2FaQ
Association of Change Management Professionals (ACMP) Pacific Northwest Chapter - 29th November 2017 public session.
We know that there is often a huge disparity between what people intend to do and what they actually do.
Standard economic theory assumes that people are rational, act based on full information, and always maximize utility, yet why then do most people struggle to save for their futures, exercise more, or pursue healthier diets? Research shows that in fact humans are actually irrational beings, that are heavily influenced by their peers, and make decisions based on heuristics due to increasing limitations on their time and attention.
Based on the disciplines of psychology, data analytics, cognitive science, behavioral economics, and anthropology, behavioral insights can be applied to successful change management interventions and more importantly, using methods drawn from experimental psychology, neuromarketing, and healthcare randomized control trials, can measure and provide real evidence of success or failure of those interventions.
This partnering of neuroscience and change management, in effect NeuroChange, presents new and exciting ways to engage audiences, reduce resistance, realize benefits, and ultimately increase return on investment. This session will use real examples from industry and Microsoft customers, and show you how nudges can be used to change user behavior. It will also include pointers to follow up reading and additional webinars for additional professional development in this area.
Every two years, One Voice Texas membership participates in a survey to evaluate the degree of success of our work. In turn, these results are used by the Board and staff to guide growth of the organization. This survey is conducted by Gerald Goodman, PhD, Professor and Program Director, Health Care Administration, Texas Woman’s University.
2. Intended Learning Outcomes
Examine how status may affect the economic behaviour
of an individual
of those around him
How the behaviour of leaders may affect employees
behaviour
How other factors commonly ignored in economics may
affect economic behaviour within organisations
responsibility towards others
Singling out / Ostracism
Show that sometimes is sufficient to have sufficient
authority. Incentives don´t matter!
3. The Effect of Status on Charitable
Giving (Kumur and Vesterlund, 2010)
Fundraisers often start their campaigns by soliciting
the wealthier, more recognized and respected
individuals in a community.
Purpose of the study is to examine whether the
success of this solicitation ordering in part can be
attributed to the fact that it enables individuals to
select organizations that have a high-status donor
base
4. Experimental Design
Two stages
Stage 1: Participant where divided into low-status &
high-status depending on how well they did on a
general knowledge quiz.
Stage 2: 2-player Voluntary contribution game.
Two options: A & B
Option A: participant receives $1
Option B: Both participants receives £0.75
In treatment 1 the high status player plays first
In treatment 2 the low status player plays first
6. If a leader contributes he increases the probability
that a follower contributes by 39 percent in the
Star-First treatment and by 25 percent in the Star-
Second treatment.
Do the leaders and followers anticipate this?
YES!!
10. Cooperation and status in
organizations (Eckel et al. 2010)
Social status plays a complex role in human interaction
Purpose of the study is to study whether social status serves
as a useful mechanism for solving public goods problems.
Status can act as a coordinating device with higher-status
individuals more likely to be mimicked.
Or in a setting with costly punishment, social status may
enhance the effectiveness of punishment and reduce
antisocial punishment, enhancing overall efficiency.
11. A network!
4-Player Public good game using a star network!
Note that Player 1 observes everyone and everyone
observes only player 1!
12. The experiment follows a 2x2 design.
That is High, Low status and With and Without Punishment
Status was determined by a quiz- in high status the
student with the highest score was assigned as the central
player (and vece versa)
In treatments with Punishment Player 1 can punish
everyone and every other player can only punish Player
1.
15. Cooperation and status in
organizations (Eckel et al. 2010)
Status matters.
The decisions of a central, commonly observed
player affect the decisions of peripheral players:
central players serve a leadership role.
peripheral players are more likely to mimic the
behavior of high-status central players
High-status central players punish more and are
punished less.
16. The Social Costs of Responsibility
(Humphrey and Renner, 2011)
Would the choices you make be affected by whether or
not you have responsibility for the welfare of others?
Would you continue to smoke whilst pregnant or drive your
car at the same speed when your children are passengers?
As a parent would you donate more or less of your money
to charity, more or less of your time to volunteering?
Household decisions are often taken by the head of the
household but affect all family members.
Managers frequently take decisions as representatives of
firms that affect themselves as well as other employees.
17. The Social Costs of Responsibility
(Humphrey and Renner, 2011)
3 Treatments
Baseline: A standard 4-player Public Good Game
Strangers treatment: Each player is responsible for the
earnings of a stranger. Whatever the player makes
the same amount is paid to the stranger.
Friends treatment: Each player is responsible for the
earnings of a stranger. Whatever the player makes
the same amount is paid to the stranger.
19. The Social Costs of Responsibility
(Humphrey and Renner, 2011)
Results
Contributions in the Friends treatment were lower than
in the baseline (Mann-Whitney, p=0.087)
Contributions in the Strangers treatment were not
statistically significant different from the baseline
(Mann-Whitney, p=0.67)
Contributions in the Friends treatment were lower than
in the Strangers (Mann-Whitney, p=0.037)
Social ties are essential for responsibility to affect
behaviour!
20. Trust and Trustworthiness with Singleton
Groups (Galeotti and Zizzo, 2012)
Galeotti and Zizzo where interested on what happen
if you artificially single out an individual out of a
group.
How would this affect the behaviour of the singled out
individual but also of those who have to liase with him.
Singling out can have negative connotations (i.e black
sheep) or positive (gold sheep).
29. Giving rate
to singled
out subjects
Giving rate
to non-
singled out
subjects
• Result 1: non-singled out subjects gave less on average to
singled out than non-singled out subjects (Wilcoxon p = 0.011),
a result driven by RS (Wilcoxon p = 0.036).
0.1.2.3.4.5
B BS GS RS PIBS PIGS ABS
Figure 1: Giving rates
Trust and Trustworthiness with Singleton
Groups (Galeotti and Zizzo, 2012)
30. Return rate
to singled
out subjects
Return rate
to non-
singled out
subjects
• Result 2: when subjects not responsible of the distinct
status of the singled out individual, less trustworthy towards
him or her (Wilcoxon p = 0.038); when responsible, no
difference (Wilcoxon p > 0.1).
0.05.1.15.2.25
B BS GS RS PIBS PIGS ABS
Figure 2: Return rates
Trust and Trustworthiness with Singleton
Groups (Galeotti and Zizzo, 2012)
31. • Result 3: in aggregate, singled out subjects trust others less
than non-singled out subjects (Wilcoxon p = 0.040).
Giving rate
from singled
out subjects
Giving rate
from non-
singled out
subjectsGiving rate
from
authorities
0.1.2.3.4.5
B BS GS RS PIBS PIGS ABS
Figure 3: Giving rates
Trust and Trustworthiness with Singleton
Groups (Galeotti and Zizzo, 2012)
32. Return rate
from singled
out subjects
Return rate
from non-
singled out
subjectsReturn rate
from
authorities
• Result 5: Authorities return less than non-singled out
subjects (Wilcoxon p = 0.030) and baseline subjects (Mann-
Whitney p = 0.045);
• Result 4: Least preferred singled out subjects return
less than non-singled out subjects (Wilcoxon p = 0.003)
and baseline subjects (Mann-Whitney p = 0.004);
0.05.1.15.2.25
B BS GS RS PIBS PIGS ABS
Figure 4: Return rates
Trust and Trustworthiness with Singleton
Groups (Galeotti and Zizzo, 2012)
33. 1/31/2017
• Result 6: Most preferred singled out subjects behave bimodally,
with either high or low return rates (Siegel-Tukey p = 0.007).
02468
Density
0 .5 1
Baseline
02468
Density
0 .5 1
BS
02468
Density
0 .5 1
RS
02468
Density
0 .5 1
PIBS
02468
Density
0 .5 1
ABS
Trust and Trustworthiness with Singleton
Groups (Galeotti and Zizzo, 2012)
34. Endogenous Leadership: Selection and
Influence (Arbak & Villeval, 2008)
Arbak and Villeval (2007) were interested in voluntary
leadership.
Leading a team is hard work!
If leading is costly, why are some people willing to do it?
What influences the decision to lead and what effect do
the leader’s choice has on the ‘followers’?
35. Endogenous Leadership: Selection and
Influence (Arbak & Villeval, 2008)
Experimental Design
Two stage Public good game
Participants can choose between contributing in the first stage (as
leaders) or in the second stage (as followers)
The key difference is that if you contribute in the second stage you
are informed of how much the leader has contributed.
When there are more than one volunteers to lead one is selected
at random.
However, all volunteers are asked how much they would have
contributed as leaders (you can then compare how they would behave as
followers or leaders!)
In the end of the experiment subjects also completed a personality
test
36. Endogenous Leadership: Selection and
Influence (Arbak & Villeval, 2008)
Experimental Design
3 Treatments
Benchmark – participants can choose in which stage they
want to participate (as explained in previous slide)
Attribute – Benchamark + subjects are also informed
about gender a measure of social orientation
A yellow circle next to the name of above average
contributions to a charity from their initial endowment
Control –1 subject is randomly allocated to the first stage.
38. Endogenous Leadership: Selection and
Influence (Arbak & Villeval, 2008)
Key Results
A quarter of subjects are wiling to lead despite it usually
entails of earning 25% less than followers!
Leaders contributions decrease over time slower than the
contributions of followers! – The leaders influence
potentially vanishes!
Eliminated leaders contribute more than three times more
than self-selected followers
39. Who makes a good leader? Social preferences
and leading-by-example (Gachter et al., 2008)
Examine the effects of social preferences and beliefs
about the social preferences of others in a 2-player
leader-follower voluntary contributions game.
Both players allocated 5 tokens
For each token contributed to the joint account each
player receives £1. Each token kept yields a £1 return to
the player.
Game is sequential.
Subjects had to also complete a Prediction task, and
a Machiavellian instrument/questionnaire
43. After controlling for
beliefs (Degree of
optimisim) SR and WR
still is statistically
significant.
Reciprocators still
contribute more even
after controlling for
beliefs!
44. The dos and don’ts of leadership in sequential
public goods experiments (Rivas & Sutter, 2008)
Experimental Design
6 Treatments
Control – A standard 4 player PGG
Reward – A leader is randomly allocated; leader
contributes first; then rewards one member with a 10ECU
bonus to at the cost of 2ECU to everyone else.
Exclusion – As Reward but instead of rewards the leader
can exclude one member of the group.
Endogenous – Subjects can become leaders by being the
first who contribute in the PGG
Exogenous – A further control
Last – AS Reward and Exclusion but leader contributes last
45. The do’s and don’ts of leadership in sequential
public goods experiments (Rivas & Sutter, 2008)
46. The dos and don’ts of leadership in sequential
public goods experiments (Rivas & Sutter, 2008)
47. The dos and don’ts of leadership in sequential
public goods experiments (Rivas & Sutter, 2008)
48. Obedience (Karakostas and Zizzo, 2012)
Organizational settings
Tough choices
Possibly unpleasant
Just following orders
The Manager
49. Experimental Design: Replication
Joy of destruction mini-game (AH, 2011, paper and
pencil)
Open:
o 2 players with10 guilders each
o Both decide simultaneously whether or not to destroy 5
guilders at a cost of 1 guilder
50. Obedience (Karakostas and Zizzo, 2012)
“most organizations would cease to operate efficiently if
deference to authority were not one of the prevailing
norms.” (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004:596)
How much are people willing to destroy if told to do so?
o Does there have to be a reason?
o Does aggression depend on expectation of aggression of
others?
How far can demand effects ‘go’?
57. Kumru, Cagri S., and Lise Vesterlund. "The effect of status on
charitable giving." Journal of Public Economic Theory 12.4 (2010):
709-735.
Eckel, Catherine C., Enrique Fatas, and Rick Wilson. "Cooperation
and status in organizations." Journal of Public Economic
Theory 12.4 (2010): 737-762.
Arbak, Emrah, and Marie-Claire Villeval. Endogenous leadership:
selection and influence. No. 2732. IZA Discussion Papers, 2007.
Gürerk, Özgür, Bernd Irlenbusch, and Bettina Rockenbach.
"Motivating teammates: The leader’s choice between positive and
negative incentives."Journal of Economic Psychology 30.4 (2009):
591-607.
Expected reading
58. Expected reading
Humphrey, Steven J., and Elke Renner. The social costs of
responsibility. No. 2011-02. CeDEx discussion paper series, 2011.
Karakostas and Zizzo (2013) “Obedience” Working paper
available at:
http://164.15.27.46/ecaresdocuments/seminars1213/zizzo.pdf
Galeotti, Fabio, and Daniel John Zizzo. "Trust and trustworthiness
with singleton groups." University of East Anglia Centre for
Behavioural and Experimental Social Science Working Paper (2012):
12-03.
Eckel, Catherine C., Enrique Fatas, and Rick Wilson. "Cooperation
and status in organizations." Journal of Public Economic Theory 12.4
(2010): 737-762.
59. Expected reading
Rivas, Maria Fernanda, and Matthias Sutter. The dos and don'ts of
leadership in sequential public goods experiments. No. 2008-25.
Working Papers in Economics and Statistics, 2008.
Hong, Kessely, and Iris Bohnet. "Status and distrust: The relevance
of inequality and betrayal aversion." Journal of Economic
Psychology 28.2 (2007): 197-213.
Andreoni, James, and Justin M. Rao. "The power of asking: How
communication affects selfishness, empathy, and altruism." Journal
of Public Economics 95.7 (2011): 513-520.