Measuring the Distribution of Spitefulness

Kimbrough, Erik O.; Reiss, Julian

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0041812

Cited by 44 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The role of spitefulness in human societies has been the topic of several fascinating investigations (71)(72)(73). Without question, humans engage in spiteful behaviors for a complex of reasons, many likely owing to some vestigial selective benefits.…”

Section: Prosociality and Spitementioning

confidence: 99%

Public goods in relation to competition, cooperation, and spite

Levin

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public goods and common-pool resources are fundamental features of biological and social systems, and pose core challenges in achieving sustainability; for such situations, the immediate interests of individuals and the societies in which they are embedded are in potential conflict, involving game-theoretic considerations whose resolution need not serve the collective good. Evolution has often confronted such dilemmas-e.g., in bacterial biofilms-in the challenges of cancer, in nitrogen fixation and chelation, in the production of antibiotics, and in collective action problems across animal groups; there is much to learn from the Darwinian resolution of these situations for how to address problems our societies face today. Addressing these problems involves understanding the emergence of cooperative agreements, from reciprocal altruism and insurance arrangements to the social norms and more formal institutions that maintain societies. At the core are the issues of how individuals and societies discount the future and the interests of others, and the degree that individual decisions are influenced by regard for others. Ultimately, as Garrett Hardin suggested, the solution to problems of the commons is in "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon," and hence in how groups of individuals form and how they arrive at decisions that ultimately benefit all.prosociality | collective phenomena | complex adaptive systems

show abstract

Section: Prosociality and Spitementioning

confidence: 99%

Public goods in relation to competition, cooperation, and spite

Levin

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We start by providing an overview of the data. Throughout we analyze only second movers: 6 our sample consists of 30 male second movers and 28 female second movers Cettolin and Riedl (2011), Eacret, Lafferty, and Jhunjhunwala (2011), Hammermann, Mohnen, and Nieken (2011, Riener and Wiederhold (2011), Djawadi and Fahr (2012), Gill, Prowse, and Vlassopoulos (2013), Kimbrough and Reiss (2012), and Monahan (2012). 5 In the practice rounds, the subjects were not told whether they had won or lost.…”

Section: Overview Of the Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences and dynamics in competition: The role of luck

Gill

Prowse

2014

Quantitative Economics

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a real effort experiment with repeated competition we find striking differences in how the work effort of men and women responds to previous wins and losses. For women, losing per se is detrimental to productivity, but for men, a loss impacts negatively on productivity only when the prize at stake is big enough. Responses to luck are more persistent and explain more of the variation in behavior for women, and account for about half of the gender performance gap in our experiment. Our findings shed new light on why women may be less inclined to pursue competition‐intensive careers.

show abstract

“…Throughout we analyze only second movers: 6 our sample consists of 30 male second movers and 28 female second movers Cettolin and Riedl (2011), Eacret, Lafferty, and Jhunjhunwala (2011), Hammermann, Mohnen, and Nieken (2011), Riener and Wiederhold (2011), Djawadi and Fahr (2012, Gill, Prowse, and Vlassopoulos (2013), Kimbrough and Reiss (2012), and Monahan (2012). 5 In the practice rounds, the subjects were not told whether they had won or lost.…”

Section: Overview Of the Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Differences and Dynamics in Competition: The Role of Luck

Gill¹,

Prowse

2011

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. In a real effort experiment with repeated competition we find striking differences in how the work effort of men and women responds to previous wins and losses. For women, losing per se is detrimental to productivity, but for men, a loss impacts negatively on productivity only when the prize at stake is big enough. Responses to luck are more persistent and explain more of the variation in behavior for women, and account for about half of the gender performance gap in our experiment. Our findings shed new light on why women may be less inclined to pursue competition-intensive careers. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may

show abstract

Measuring the Distribution of Spitefulness

Cited by 44 publications

References 34 publications

Public goods in relation to competition, cooperation, and spite

Public goods in relation to competition, cooperation, and spite

Gender differences and dynamics in competition: The role of luck

Gender Differences and Dynamics in Competition: The Role of Luck

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About