Rémi Suchon

Managing shared resources requires balancing personal profit and sustainability. This paper reports on a behavioural experiment testing how extraction defaults—either pro-social or exploitative—impact resource extraction in a common pool resource dilemma (CPRD). We find that an exploitative default increases average extraction compared to a control without a default, while a pro-social default temporarily reduces extraction. The effects of both defaults are temporary, and extraction levels converge to those in the control group, with the pro-social default fading faster. Notably, the influence of defaults depended on individual inclinations, with cooperative individuals extracting more under an exploitative default, and selfish individuals less under a pro-social default. Our findings suggest that while defaults can promote short-term sustainability, their long-term effects are limited, and their effectiveness depends on individual traits.

In an era increasingly influenced by autonomous machines, it is only a matter of time before strategic individual decisions that impact collective goods will also be made virtually through the use of artificial delegates. Through a series of behavioral experiments that combine delegation to autonomous agents and different choice architectures, we pinpoint what may get lost in translation when humans delegate to algorithms. We focus on the collective-risk dilemma, a game where participants must decide whether or not to contribute to a public good, where the latter must reach a target in order for them to keep their personal endowments. To test the effect of delegation beyond its functionality as a commitment device, participants are asked to play the game a second time, with the same group, where they are given the chance to reprogram their agents. As our main result we find that, when the action space is constrained, people who delegate contribute more to the public good, even if they have experienced more failure and inequality than people who do not delegate. However, they are not more successful. Failing to reach the target, after getting close to it, can be attributed to precision errors in the agent’s algorithm that cannot be corrected amid the game. Thus, with the digitization and subsequent limitation of our interactions, artificial delegates appear to be a solution to help preserving public goods over many iterations of risky situations. But actual success can only be achieved if humans learn to adjust their agents’ algorithms.

Experimental evidence shows that in a repeated dilemma setting cooperation is more likely to become the norm in small matching groups than in large ones. This result holds even if cooperation is an equilibrium outcome for all investigated group sizes. But what happens if small matching groups are merged to become large ones? Our paper is based on the idea that due to norm spillovers, a large group created by a merger of small groups is more likely to cooperate than a large group of similar size that is created directly. We tested this idea experimentally in the context of an infinitely repeated prisoner's dilemma game. We compared the cooperation behavior of groups that result from mergers of smaller groups with the cooperation behavior of groups with constant group size. We found that cooperation levels were significantly higher in large groups that resulted from gradual growth than in large groups of the same size that were directly created. Looking at the individual behavior, we see that more subjects develop a norm of unconditional cooperation when the group size increases than when it is already large from the beginning. Hence, our results confirm the idea that cooperation is much more likely to be achieved when groups grow from small to large than when large groups are formed directly.

We experimentally study whether conciliation, a dispute resolution mechanism where a neutral third party makes non-binding suggestions of resolution to the parties, can improve bargaining efficiency. In conciliation, a neutral third party collaborates with the parties by suggesting resolutions to promote agreements. Unlike delegation or arbitration, conciliation fully preserves the autonomy of the parties. Unlike mediation, the conciliator cannot filter information. Whether conciliation can improve bargaining efficiency is an open question. In our laboratory experiment, two “litigants” bargain over the split of a loss in an unstructured protocol. In case of failure, a random split is implemented. In some conditions, a third party, the conciliator takes part in the bargaining by submitting non-binding suggestions to the litigants. We find that, on average, conciliation does not reduce the likelihood of failure, and does not affect the splits that are agreed upon by litigants. However, conciliation reduces bargaining delays: the time and the number of offers necessary to converge to an agreement are significantly reduced in the presence of a conciliator. In addition, conciliation has a heterogeneous effect: while its average effect is null, for bargaining pairs composed of selfish litigants, it results in more equal agreements. The social preferences of the conciliator matter too, both for the likelihood and nature of agreements.

Cooperation has many economic and social benefits, yet it is vulnerable to inequality. This study examines how the magnitude of inequality affects cooperation, focusing on differences in behavior between individuals randomly assigned to high (i.e. the rich) and low endowments (i.e. the poor). To do so, we use a novel dataset that pools individual-level observations from 24 published experimental linear public good games with unequal endowments. Pooling many studies allows us to study the causal effect of inequality at the participant level, with a substantial variation in levels of inequality. Such a variation would be very hard to get with a single, properly powered experiment. We start by confirming that inequality reduces overall contributions, and that the rich contribute a lower share (“relative contribution”) of their endowment than the poor on average. We further identify a striking asymmetry: as inequality grows, the relative contributions of the rich decrease significantly, while the relative contributions of the poor are not significantly impacted. Therefore, the gap in contributions across statuses increases as inequality gets stronger. We provide a simple model of conditional cooperation that is compatible with our empirical findings. These results may inform the design of policies addressing inequality and social cohesion.

Extracting from shared resources requires making choices to balance personal profit and sustainability. We present the results of a behavioural experiment wherein we manipulate the default extraction from a finite resource. Participants were exposed to two treatments -- pro-social or self-serving extraction defaults -- and a control without defaults. We examined the persistence of these nudges by removing the default after five rounds. Results reveal that a self-serving default increased the average extraction while present, whereas a pro-social default only decreased extraction for the first two rounds. Notably, the influence of defaults depended on individual inclinations, with cooperative individuals extracting more under a self-serving default, and selfish individuals less under a pro-social default. After the removal of the default, we observed no significant differences with the control treatment. Our research highlights the potential of defaults as cost-effective tools for promoting sustainability, while also advocating for a careful use to avoid adverse effects.

In sequential social dilemmas with stranger matching, initiating cooperation is inherently risky for the first mover. The disclosure of the second mover's past actions may be necessary to instigate cooperation. We experimentally compare the effect of mandatory and voluntary disclosure with non disclosure in a sequential prisoner's dilemma situation. Our results confirm the positive effects of disclosure on cooperation. We also find that voluntary disclosure is as effective as mandatory one, which is surprising given the results of existing literature on this topic. With voluntary disclosure, second movers with a good track record decided to disclose because they expect that not disclosing signals non-cooperativeness. First movers interpret nondisclosure correctly as a signal of non-cooperativeness. Therefore, they cooperate less than half as often when the second mover does not disclose. * We thank Elias Fernandez and Antoine Deplancke for helping with the experiment in Brussels and Lille. This project received financial support from Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS, PDR T014318F).

We experimentally study conciliation, an intervention aimed at improving bargaining efficiency. In conciliation, a neutral third party collaborates with the parties by suggesting resolutions to promote agreements. Unlike delegation or arbitration, conciliation fully preserves the autonomy of the parties. Unlike mediation, the conciliator cannot filter information. Whether conciliation can improve bargaining efficiency is an open question. In our laboratory experiment, two "litigants" bargain over the split of a loss in an unstructured protocol. In case of failure, a random split is implemented. In some conditions, a third party, the conciliator takes part in the bargaining by submitting non-binding suggestions to the litigants. We find that, on average, conciliation does not affect the likelihood of failure or the splits that are agreed upon by litigants. However, for bargaining pairs composed of selfish litigants, conciliation leads to more equal agreements. Conciliation also reduces bargaining delays: the time and the number of offers necessary to converge to an agreement are significantly reduced in the presence of a conciliator.