Elke Renner
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Previous Organizations / Institutes
The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Elke Renner has a total of 13 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Klaus Abbink
Monash University
6 shared publications - Martin Sefton
University of Nottingham
4 shared publications Bernd Irlenbusch
3 shared publications- Bernd Irlenbusch
Department of Management, London School of Economics and IZA, London, UK
3 shared publications Simon Gächter
3 shared publications- Simon Gächter
University of Nottingham, UK
3 shared publications
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 1 October 2018
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
- Vol. 154, 321-334
Leaders as role models and ‘belief managers’ in social dilemmas
- 1 October 2018
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
- Vol. 154, 321-334
Open AccessLeaders as role models and ‘belief managers’ in social dilemmas
- 1 December 2013
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Experimental Economics
- Vol. 16 (4) , 478-496
Confusion and learning in the voluntary contributions game
We use a limited information environment to assess the role of confusion in the repeated voluntary contributions game. A comparison with play in a standard version of the game suggests, that the common claim that decision errors due to confused subjects biases estimates of cooperation upwards, is not necessarily correct. Furthermore, we find that simple learning cannot generate the kind of contribution dynamics commonly attributed to the existence of conditional cooperators. We conclude that cooperative behavior and its decay observed in public goods games is not a pure artefact of confusion and learning.
- 1 December 2013
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Experimental Economics
- Vol. 16 (4) , 478-496
Confusion and learning in the voluntary contributions game
We use a limited information environment to assess the role of confusion in the repeated voluntary contributions game. A comparison with play in a standard version of the game suggests, that the common claim that decision errors due to confused subjects biases estimates of cooperation upwards, is not necessarily correct. Furthermore, we find that simple learning cannot generate the kind of contribution dynamics commonly attributed to the existence of conditional cooperators. We conclude that cooperative behavior and its decay observed in public goods games is not a pure artefact of confusion and learning.
- Open Access
- 1 November 2013
- Published by Elsevier in European Economic Review
- Vol. 64, 223-240
Information feedback and contest structure in rent-seeking games
- 1 November 2013
- Published by Elsevier in European Economic Review
- Vol. 64, 223-240
Open AccessInformation feedback and contest structure in rent-seeking games
- 4 October 2012
- Published by Wiley in Economic Inquiry
- Vol. 50 (4) , 953-967
WHO MAKES A GOOD LEADER? COOPERATIVENESS, OPTIMISM, AND LEADING‐BY‐EXAMPLE
We examine the characteristics of effective leaders in a simple leader‐follower voluntary contributions game. We focus on two factors: the individual's cooperativeness and the individual's beliefs about the cooperativeness of others. We find that groups perform best when led by those who are cooperatively inclined. Partly, this reflects a false consensus effect: cooperative leaders are more optimistic than noncooperators about the cooperativeness of followers. However, cooperative leaders contribute more than noncooperative leaders even after controlling for optimism. We conclude that differing leader contributions by differing types of leader in large part reflects social motivations.(JELA13, C92, D03)
- 4 October 2012
- Published by Wiley in Economic Inquiry
- Vol. 50 (4) , 953-967
WHO MAKES A GOOD LEADER? COOPERATIVENESS, OPTIMISM, AND LEADING‐BY‐EXAMPLE
We examine the characteristics of effective leaders in a simple leader‐follower voluntary contributions game. We focus on two factors: the individual's cooperativeness and the individual's beliefs about the cooperativeness of others. We find that groups perform best when led by those who are cooperatively inclined. Partly, this reflects a false consensus effect: cooperative leaders are more optimistic than noncooperators about the cooperativeness of followers. However, cooperative leaders contribute more than noncooperative leaders even after controlling for optimism. We conclude that differing leader contributions by differing types of leader in large part reflects social motivations.(JELA13, C92, D03)
- 1 September 2010
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Experimental Economics
- Vol. 13 (3) , 364-377
The effects of (incentivized) belief elicitation in public goods experiments
Belief elicitation is an important methodological issue for experimental economists. There are two generic questions: 1) Do incentives increase belief accuracy? 2) Are there interaction effects of beliefs and decisions? We investigate these questions in the case of finitely repeated public goods experiments. We find that belief accuracy is significantly higher when beliefs are incentivized. The relationship between contributions and beliefs is slightly steeper under incentives. However, we find that incentivized beliefs tend to lead to higher contribution levels than either non-incentivized beliefs or no beliefs at all. We discuss the implications of our results for the design of public good experiments.
- 1 September 2010
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Experimental Economics
- Vol. 13 (3) , 364-377
The effects of (incentivized) belief elicitation in public goods experiments
Belief elicitation is an important methodological issue for experimental economists. There are two generic questions: 1) Do incentives increase belief accuracy? 2) Are there interaction effects of beliefs and decisions? We investigate these questions in the case of finitely repeated public goods experiments. We find that belief accuracy is significantly higher when beliefs are incentivized. The relationship between contributions and beliefs is slightly steeper under incentives. However, we find that incentivized beliefs tend to lead to higher contribution levels than either non-incentivized beliefs or no beliefs at all. We discuss the implications of our results for the design of public good experiments.
- 1 August 2010
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Public Economics
- Vol. 94 (7-8) , 515-522
Sequential vs. simultaneous contributions to public goods: Experimental evidence
- 1 August 2010
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Public Economics
- Vol. 94 (7-8) , 515-522
Sequential vs. simultaneous contributions to public goods: Experimental evidence
- 1 June 2009
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
- Vol. 70 (3) , 443-446
Are experimental economists prone to framing effects? A natural field experiment
- 1 June 2009
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
- Vol. 70 (3) , 443-446
Are experimental economists prone to framing effects? A natural field experiment
- Top Cited Papers
- 5 December 2008
- Published by American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Science
- Vol. 322 (5907) , 1510
The Long-Run Benefits of Punishment
Experiments have shown that punishment enhances socially beneficial cooperation but that the costs of punishment outweigh the gains from cooperation. This challenges evolutionary models of altruistic cooperation and punishment, which predict that punishment will be beneficial. We compared 10- and 50-period cooperation experiments. With the longer time horizon, punishment is unambiguously beneficial.
- 5 December 2008
- Published by American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Science
- Vol. 322 (5907) , 1510
Top Cited PapersThe Long-Run Benefits of Punishment
Experiments have shown that punishment enhances socially beneficial cooperation but that the costs of punishment outweigh the gains from cooperation. This challenges evolutionary models of altruistic cooperation and punishment, which predict that punishment will be beneficial. We compared 10- and 50-period cooperation experiments. With the longer time horizon, punishment is unambiguously beneficial.
- 1 October 2006
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Economic Inquiry
- Vol. 44 (4) , 614-628
GROUP SIZE AND SOCIAL TIES IN MICROFINANCE INSTITUTIONS
- 1 October 2006
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Economic Inquiry
- Vol. 44 (4) , 614-628
GROUP SIZE AND SOCIAL TIES IN MICROFINANCE INSTITUTIONS
- 1 June 2006
- Published by Wiley in Pacific Economic Review
- Vol. 11 (2) , 185-199
INTEREST RATES IN GROUP LENDING: A BEHAVIOURAL INVESTIGATION
- 1 June 2006
- Published by Wiley in Pacific Economic Review
- Vol. 11 (2) , 185-199
INTEREST RATES IN GROUP LENDING: A BEHAVIOURAL INVESTIGATION