dc.contributor.advisor |
Bernasconi, Michele |
|
dc.contributor.author |
Cruciani, Caterina <1981> |
it_IT |
dc.date.accessioned |
2013-06-13T11:29:32Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2013-06-13T11:29:32Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
2013-05-06 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/10579/3014 |
|
dc.description.abstract |
La tesi affronta dinamiche di preferenze altruistiche in contesti informali, in cui non sia possibile creare vincoli formali tra gli individui. Il primo articolo indaga con un esperimento se i gruppi risultino più egoisti degli individui nel consumo di una risorsa rinnovabile, partendo dall’evidenza empirica sulla minore disponibilità degli individui in gruppi a fornire aiuto (bystander effect). Gli altri due articoli affrontano due diverse idee di similarità per valutare il ruolo della similarità percepita nello stabilirsi di fiducia e cooperazione. Il secondo articolo introduce un esperimento basato sul trust game, in cui viene introdotta la possibilità di selezionare il partner per valutare se questa abbia un effetto positivo sulle preferenze altruistiche in contesti informali. Nel terzo articolo la similarità tra agenti si dimostra determinante per la cooperazione, in un ambiente di simulazione in cui gli agenti possono liberamente unirsi e lasciare gruppi informali. |
it_IT |
dc.description.abstract |
This thesis addresses dynamics of other-regarding preferences emerging in informal contexts, where clear commitments among individuals are not possible. The first paper tests experimentally if groups remain more self interested than individuals when consuming a renewable resource, building on the empirical evidence on the bystander effect. The other two papers build on two different ideas of similarity to address whether perceived similarity can be a driver of trust or cooperation. An experimental analysis introduces partner selection in a trust game to check whether other-regarding preferences in informal environments benefit from this feature, while at the same time controlling for similarity as a driver of increased trust, following on the literature of minimal group paradigm and in-group out-group bias. In the third paper similarity is shown to be a successful driver of increased cooperation in a simulation environment, when individuals may freely join and leave informal groups. |
it_IT |
dc.language.iso |
en |
it_IT |
dc.publisher |
Università Ca' Foscari Venezia |
it |
dc.rights |
© Caterina Cruciani, 2013 |
it_IT |
dc.subject |
Perceived similarity |
it_IT |
dc.subject |
Trust |
it_IT |
dc.subject |
Experiments |
it_IT |
dc.subject |
Simulation |
it_IT |
dc.title |
Three essays on group dynamics, other-regarding preferences and cooperation |
it_IT |
dc.type |
Doctoral Thesis |
en |
dc.degree.name |
Economia |
it_IT |
dc.degree.level |
Dottorato di ricerca |
it |
dc.degree.grantor |
Scuola superiore di Economia |
it_IT |
dc.description.academicyear |
2013 |
it_IT |
dc.description.cycle |
24 |
it_IT |
dc.degree.coordinator |
Bernasconi, Michele |
|
dc.location.shelfmark |
D001227 |
it |
dc.location |
Venezia, Archivio Università Ca' Foscari, Tesi Dottorato |
it |
dc.rights.accessrights |
openAccess |
it_IT |
dc.thesis.matricno |
955547 |
it_IT |
dc.format.pagenumber |
131 p. |
it_IT |
dc.subject.miur |
SECS-P/01 ECONOMIA POLITICA |
it_IT |
dc.description.note |
Doctor Europaeus |
it_IT |
dc.description.tableofcontent |
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1 Better alone than in bad company?
Intergenerational responsibility and sustainable consumption 6
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2 Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3 The experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3.1 Research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.3.2 Experimental setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.3.3 Overview of the participants pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.4 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.4.1 Descriptive statistics and hypothesis testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.4.2 Behavior across generations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.4.3 Regression analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.5 Conclusions and discussion of the results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
1.6 Appendix 1 : Experimental instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1.6.1 Introduction and examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
1.6.2 Generation 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
1.6.3 Generation 2 and 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
1.6.4 Individual questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1.7 Appendix 2 : Alternative regression specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2 Birds of a feather flock together?
Partner selection and perceived similarity in a trust game experiment 56
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
2.2 Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.3 Research hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
2.4 The experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.4.1 Individual questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.5 Experimental results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.5.1 Descriptive analysis of participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.5.2 Descriptive analysis of the choice data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.5.3 Hypothesis testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.5.4 Quantile regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2.5.5 Understanding Trustees' behavior - Logistic regression . . . . . . . . . 88
2.6 Discussion and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3 Does Sharing Values Lead to Cooperation?
A Similarity-based Investigation 94
3.1 Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
3.2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.3 Background Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
3.4 The model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3.4.1 Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
3.5 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
3.5.1 The Basic Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
3.5.2 The Extended Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
3.6 Discussion and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123 |
it_IT |
dc.identifier.bibliographiccitation |
Cruciani Caterina, "Three essays on group dynamics, other-regarding preferences and cooperation", Università Ca' Foscari di Venezia, tesi di dottorato 24. ciclo, 2013 |
it_IT |
dc.degree.discipline |
Economia sperimentale |
it_IT |