Abstract
We replicate the study ‘Offers Beyond the Negotiating Dyad’ (Schwaninger et al., Social Science Research 79:258–271, 2019) with two different student samples located in Tianjin (China) and Kyoto (Japan) to examine the robustness of the original results. Extending a classical Social Exchange experiment to show the influence of social value orientations (SVO) on dyadic allocation decisions in three-person networks, the original study in Vienna (Austria) showed that subjects tend to sacrifice their own profits to allocate a share of a resource to the third network member. Regarding the main treatment effect, the results do not differ between samples. Minor differences in effect sizes suggest that additional factors need to be considered to explain network exchange.
March, 2020
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The rare publication of replication studies until recently is also connected to the so-called publication bias problem (e.g. Ioannidis 2005).
- 2.
For all materials see https://dx.doi.org/10.23663/x2626.
- 3.
Guanzhong Yang translated the German instructions to Chinese and Mira Schüller translated the Chinese instructions back to German. Keiko It translated the German instructions to Japanese and Kathrin Kempken translated the instructions back to German. After translation and retranslation were compared, all authors as well as translator and re-translator met, discussed, and resolved any misunderstandings.
- 4.
Total number of network level observations = 432 subjects divided by 3 (network size) times 10 periods and divided by 4 treatments (ET, IT, triangle, three-line).
- 5.
Detailed arguments and explanations of the models are provided in SNK.
- 6.
We switched the order of hypotheses (exchanging H1 and H2) of the original SNK study to improve the flow of the argument.
- 7.
Naturally this implies potential variation between samples within countries.
- 8.
The Universities differ regarding their organization/accessibility. The University of Vienna is a public university without regular tuition fees and with about 94,000 enrolled students. The Nankai University of Tianjin is a public university with a tuition fee of EUR 650 to EUR 780 per year after conversion and with 25,647 enrolled students. The Kyoto Sangyo University is a private University in which about 20,000 students are currently enrolled, with a tuition fee of about EUR 7.674 per year for the social sciences and of EUR 10.744 for the natural sciences.
- 9.
We asked the subjects in which country they had spent most of their lives and collapsed all countries with the same national language into one category. While 70% of the Viennese participants indicated that they had spent most of their lives in a German speaking country (Germany, Austria, Switzerland), all participants in Tianjin and Kyoto had spent most of their lives in China and Japan, respectively.
- 10.
Also, inequality – measured by the range of payoffs – is significantly larger in the three-line network (13.9) than in the triangle network (12.8, MWU-test, p < 0.01), as it is in the original SNK study.
- 11.
For a comparison of Economics students with students in other fields, see Frey und Meier (2005), who discuss potential reasons for differences in behavior.
References
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Brandt, M. J., Ijzerman, H., Dijksterhuis, A., Farach, F. J., Geller, J., Giner-Sorolla, R., . . . van 't Veer, A. (2014). The Replication Recipe: What makes for a convincing replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 217–224.
Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Forsell, E., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., . . . Wu, H. (2016). Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science, 351(6280), 1433–1436.
Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., . . . Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637–644.
Chen, R., Chen, Y., & Riyanto, Y. E. (2020). Best practices in replication: a case study of common information in coordination games. Experimental Economics.
Cook, K. S., Cheshire, C., Rice, E. R. W., & Nakagawa, S. (2013). Social exchange theory. In Handbook of social psychology, 2nd ed. (pp. 61–88). New York, NY, US: Springer Science + Business Media.
Emerson, R. M. (1972a). Exchange theory, part I: A psychological basis for social exchange. Sociological theories in progress, 2, 38–57.
Emerson, R. M. (1972b). Exchange theory, part II: Exchange relations and networks. Sociological theories in progress, 2, 58–87.
Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Enke, B., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2018). Global Evidence on Economic Preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(4), 1645–1692.
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.
Freese, J., & Peterson, D. (2017). Replication in Social Science. Annual Review of Sociology, 43(1), 147–165.
Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2005). Selfish and Indoctrinated Economists? European Journal of Law and Economics, 19(2), 165–171.
Griesinger, D. W., & Livingston Jr, J. W. (1973). Toward a model of interpersonal motivation in experimental games. Behavioral Science, 18(3), 173–188.
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., . . . Tracer, D. (2005). “Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(6), 795–815.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? The Behavioral and brain sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83; discussion 83–135.
Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects. The American Economic Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLOS Medicine, 2(8), e124.
Jasny, B. R., Chin, G., Chong, L., & Vignieri, S. (2011). Again, and again, and again…. Science, 334(6060), 1225.
Lewis, D., & Willer, D. (2017). Does Social Value Orientation Theory Apply to Social Relations? Sociological Science, 4, 249–262.
Messick, D. M., & McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–25.
Molm, L. D. (2014). Chapter 9 - Experiments on Exchange Relations and Exchange Networks in Sociology. In M. Webster & J. Sell (Eds.), Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences (Second Edition) (pp. 199–224). San Diego: Academic Press.
Murphy, R., Ackermann, K., & Handgraaf, M. (2011). Measuring Social Value Orientation. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(8), 771–781.
Neuhofer, S., Reindl, I., & Kittel, B. (2016). Social Exchange Networks: A Review of Experimental Studies. Connections, 35(1), 34–51.
Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., & Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631.
Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & van de Kuilen, G. (2004). Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis. Experimental Economics, 7(2), 171–188.
Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716.
Schwaninger, M., Neuhofer, S., & Kittel, B. (2019). Offers beyond the negotiating dyad: Including the excluded in a network exchange experiment. Social Science Research, 79, 258–271.
Van Lange, P. A. M., De Bruin, E. M. N., Otten, W., & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(4), 733–746.
Walker, R. M., Brewer, G. A., Lee, M. J., Petrovsky, N., & van Witteloostuijn, A. (2018). Best Practice Recommendations for Replicating Experiments in Public Administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(4), 609–626.
Willer, D., & Anderson, B. (1981). Networks, exchange, and coercion: The elementary theory and its applications. Elsevier.
Willer, D., & Emanuelson, P. (2008). Testing Ten Theories. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 32(3), 165–203.
Willer, D., Gladstone, E., & Berigan, N. (2013). Social Values and Social Structure. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 37(2), 113–130.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge funding from the Austrian Science Fund (project numbers I1888-G11 and I3804-G27) for project B1 “Need-based justice and distributive preferences in networks”, which is part of the DFG research group FOR2014 “Need-based justice and distributive preferences”, (http://bedarfsgerechtigkeit.hsu-hh.de/). We furthermore thank the IN-EAST School of Advanced Studies for supporting the project through their “BMBF Förderung 01UC1704”. We also want to thank Markus Taube (University of Duisburg) for encouragement, support, and the facilitation of the contacts in Tianjin and Kyoto.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Neuhofer, S., Schwaninger, M., Kittel, B., Yang, G. (2022). Solidarity with Third Players in Exchange Networks: A Replication Study. In: Sauermann, J., Tepe, M., Debus, M. (eds) Jahrbuch für Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie. Jahrbuch für Handlungs- und Entscheidungstheorie. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-35878-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-35878-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-35877-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-35878-5
eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)