Confusion remains an important issue in public goods game experiments

Confusion remains an important issue in public goods game experiments

The article “Confusion cannot explain cooperative behavior in public goods games” by Wang et al. (1) is based on two experiments that modify and replicate Burton-Chellew, El Mouden & West (BEW) (2). Wang et al. implement a pregame quiz about the game’s incentives sometimes used in the literature...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS 2024-08, Vol.121 (32), p.e2411093121
Hauptverfasser: Strømland, Eirik, Koppel, Lina, Johannesson, Magnus, Tinghög, Gustav
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Letters
Social Sciences
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 32
container_start_page e2411093121
container_title Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS
container_volume 121
creator Strømland, Eirik
Koppel, Lina
Johannesson, Magnus
Tinghög, Gustav
description The article “Confusion cannot explain cooperative behavior in public goods games” by Wang et al. (1) is based on two experiments that modify and replicate Burton-Chellew, El Mouden & West (BEW) (2). Wang et al. implement a pregame quiz about the game’s incentives sometimes used in the literature (3), but in contrast to BEW, subjects cannot proceed until they have answered the questions correctly. After this quiz, Wang et al. measure comprehension and report that only 2.5% (Study 1) to 4% (Study 2) misunderstand the game. They argue that their findings undermine BEW’s conclusion, suggesting that confusion is not an important factor in explaining cooperative behavior.
doi_str_mv 10.1073/pnas.2411093121
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_swepu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_swepub_primary_oai_hhs_se_1172890900006056</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3084771673</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-6411039298d697483cd93078bb80821066ea1f2b53d07ffc168b2f2557f4be053</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1v1DAQxS1ERZfCmRvykUvasR3H9glVS_mQKnEpXC0ncXaNEjt4ktL-93i1pdADJ4_k33vzRo-QNwzOGShxMUeH57xmDIxgnD0jmzKxqqkNPCcbAK4qXfP6lLxE_AEARmp4QU6FAcl1bTbkapvisGJIkWY_uRCRukjDNKe8uLjQgLh6GiKd13YMHd2l1CPduclTfzf7HCYfF3xFTgY3on_98J6Rbx-vbrafq-uvn75sL6-rTki9lFglqDDc6L4xqtai640ApdtWg-YMmsY7NvBWih7UMHSs0S0fuJRqqFsPUpwRdvTFX74EsnPZ7_K9TS7Y_R4tesuY4tqAKcdCA7Ipmuq_mg_h-6VNeWfHsFp-4E3h3x_5Ak--78p92Y1PZE9_YtjbXbotmwVTUqvi8O7BIaefq8fFTgE7P44u-rSiFaBrpVijREEvjmiXE2L2w-MeBvbQsD00bP82XBRv_433yP-pVPwGabChRA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3084771673</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Confusion remains an important issue in public goods game experiments</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Strømland, Eirik ; Koppel, Lina ; Johannesson, Magnus ; Tinghög, Gustav</creator><creatorcontrib>Strømland, Eirik ; Koppel, Lina ; Johannesson, Magnus ; Tinghög, Gustav</creatorcontrib><description>The article “Confusion cannot explain cooperative behavior in public goods games” by Wang et al. (1) is based on two experiments that modify and replicate Burton-Chellew, El Mouden &amp; West (BEW) (2). Wang et al. implement a pregame quiz about the game’s incentives sometimes used in the literature (3), but in contrast to BEW, subjects cannot proceed until they have answered the questions correctly. After this quiz, Wang et al. measure comprehension and report that only 2.5% (Study 1) to 4% (Study 2) misunderstand the game. They argue that their findings undermine BEW’s conclusion, suggesting that confusion is not an important factor in explaining cooperative behavior.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0027-8424</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1091-6490</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1091-6490</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2411093121</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39052849</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: National Academy of Sciences</publisher><subject>Letters ; Social Sciences</subject><ispartof>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 2024-08, Vol.121 (32), p.e2411093121</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by PNAS. 2024</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-6411039298d697483cd93078bb80821066ea1f2b53d07ffc168b2f2557f4be053</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6302-0047 ; 0000-0002-8159-1249 ; 0000-0001-8759-6393 ; 0000-0003-0923-3452</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39052849$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-206059$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://research.hhs.se/esploro/outputs/letter/Confusion-remains-an-important-issue-in/991001591795206056$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Strømland, Eirik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koppel, Lina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johannesson, Magnus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tinghög, Gustav</creatorcontrib><title>Confusion remains an important issue in public goods game experiments</title><title>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS</title><addtitle>Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A</addtitle><description>The article “Confusion cannot explain cooperative behavior in public goods games” by Wang et al. (1) is based on two experiments that modify and replicate Burton-Chellew, El Mouden &amp; West (BEW) (2). Wang et al. implement a pregame quiz about the game’s incentives sometimes used in the literature (3), but in contrast to BEW, subjects cannot proceed until they have answered the questions correctly. After this quiz, Wang et al. measure comprehension and report that only 2.5% (Study 1) to 4% (Study 2) misunderstand the game. They argue that their findings undermine BEW’s conclusion, suggesting that confusion is not an important factor in explaining cooperative behavior.</description><subject>Letters</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><issn>0027-8424</issn><issn>1091-6490</issn><issn>1091-6490</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kc1v1DAQxS1ERZfCmRvykUvasR3H9glVS_mQKnEpXC0ncXaNEjt4ktL-93i1pdADJ4_k33vzRo-QNwzOGShxMUeH57xmDIxgnD0jmzKxqqkNPCcbAK4qXfP6lLxE_AEARmp4QU6FAcl1bTbkapvisGJIkWY_uRCRukjDNKe8uLjQgLh6GiKd13YMHd2l1CPduclTfzf7HCYfF3xFTgY3on_98J6Rbx-vbrafq-uvn75sL6-rTki9lFglqDDc6L4xqtai640ApdtWg-YMmsY7NvBWih7UMHSs0S0fuJRqqFsPUpwRdvTFX74EsnPZ7_K9TS7Y_R4tesuY4tqAKcdCA7Ipmuq_mg_h-6VNeWfHsFp-4E3h3x_5Ak--78p92Y1PZE9_YtjbXbotmwVTUqvi8O7BIaefq8fFTgE7P44u-rSiFaBrpVijREEvjmiXE2L2w-MeBvbQsD00bP82XBRv_433yP-pVPwGabChRA</recordid><startdate>20240806</startdate><enddate>20240806</enddate><creator>Strømland, Eirik</creator><creator>Koppel, Lina</creator><creator>Johannesson, Magnus</creator><creator>Tinghög, Gustav</creator><general>National Academy of Sciences</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>ADTPV</scope><scope>AOWAS</scope><scope>BTSUP</scope><scope>DG8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6302-0047</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8159-1249</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8759-6393</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0923-3452</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240806</creationdate><title>Confusion remains an important issue in public goods game experiments</title><author>Strømland, Eirik ; Koppel, Lina ; Johannesson, Magnus ; Tinghög, Gustav</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-6411039298d697483cd93078bb80821066ea1f2b53d07ffc168b2f2557f4be053</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Letters</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Strømland, Eirik</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koppel, Lina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johannesson, Magnus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tinghög, Gustav</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>SwePub</collection><collection>SwePub Articles</collection><collection>SwePub Editorial</collection><collection>SWEPUB Linköpings universitet</collection><jtitle>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Strømland, Eirik</au><au>Koppel, Lina</au><au>Johannesson, Magnus</au><au>Tinghög, Gustav</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Confusion remains an important issue in public goods game experiments</atitle><jtitle>Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS</jtitle><addtitle>Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A</addtitle><date>2024-08-06</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>121</volume><issue>32</issue><spage>e2411093121</spage><pages>e2411093121-</pages><issn>0027-8424</issn><issn>1091-6490</issn><eissn>1091-6490</eissn><abstract>The article “Confusion cannot explain cooperative behavior in public goods games” by Wang et al. (1) is based on two experiments that modify and replicate Burton-Chellew, El Mouden &amp; West (BEW) (2). Wang et al. implement a pregame quiz about the game’s incentives sometimes used in the literature (3), but in contrast to BEW, subjects cannot proceed until they have answered the questions correctly. After this quiz, Wang et al. measure comprehension and report that only 2.5% (Study 1) to 4% (Study 2) misunderstand the game. They argue that their findings undermine BEW’s conclusion, suggesting that confusion is not an important factor in explaining cooperative behavior.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>National Academy of Sciences</pub><pmid>39052849</pmid><doi>10.1073/pnas.2411093121</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6302-0047</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8159-1249</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8759-6393</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0923-3452</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0027-8424
ispartof Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 2024-08, Vol.121 (32), p.e2411093121
issn 0027-8424
1091-6490
1091-6490
language eng
recordid cdi_swepub_primary_oai_hhs_se_1172890900006056
source Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Letters
Social Sciences
title Confusion remains an important issue in public goods game experiments
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T22%3A34%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_swepu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Confusion%20remains%20an%20important%20issue%20in%20public%20goods%20game%20experiments&rft.jtitle=Proceedings%20of%20the%20National%20Academy%20of%20Sciences%20-%20PNAS&rft.au=Str%C3%B8mland,%20Eirik&rft.date=2024-08-06&rft.volume=121&rft.issue=32&rft.spage=e2411093121&rft.pages=e2411093121-&rft.issn=0027-8424&rft.eissn=1091-6490&rft_id=info:doi/10.1073/pnas.2411093121&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_swepu%3E3084771673%3C/proquest_swepu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3084771673&rft_id=info:pmid/39052849&rfr_iscdi=true