the study background of the participant
Mathematical sciences and Artificial Intelligence
Liberal Arts and Sciences (UCU): Psychology/Sociology
Economics, money to be made hheeheh. actually i am a Commie
Liberal arts & sciences (university college)
MSc in Sustainable Business and Innovation
Clinical Child Family and Education studies
Economics & Business economics;Human geography and spa...
MA International Relations in Historical Perspective
Philosophy, Politics, Economics (PPE) + History
Master Sustainable Development - International Development trac
Master Education & Communication: German
Master's in Social and Behavioral Sciences

What do you think is the purpose of this experiment?
I think the purpose is to see how people feel about the distribution of wealth (in this case points), and how their decisions are influenced by the actions of other people.
I think the purpose is to explore when people start cooperating. Because some have more ' luck ' than others (meaning: they are the .75 group) they will be more likely to be punished.
Looking at the social behaviour of the group and relate this to in/out-groups
To verify if people are willling to redistribute their wealth if they have some privilege/more wealth.
If people are willing to work with a group, for what is better for the group even if it's not necessarily what is better for them. At what point does someone decide to do what benefits themself the most vs. what would benefit everyone involved. \r\n
To see how people will interact in social exchanges, if they will punish or not. Also looking at fairness motivations maybe
To see how other peoples choices influence your own
I'm not a 100% sure, but I think they want to see if you choose for yourself or the group. So if you want to give everyone the same amount of money or if you want to give everyone the most money they can get.
Assessing individuals' behavior. Exploring fairness and equality.
evaluating decisions of groups, bonding strength and adaptation to the environment the group sets
I think the purpose of the experiment is to evaluate people's tendency to contribute to common good even if this means fewer gains + to see if our tendnecy to contribute to the common good is related to our political leaning/ideas
To test the contribution willing of one person in the face of unbalance of money
Comparing decisions \r\nGroup emgagement\r\ntrsut and trsuworthiness
To test our understanding of game theory and practice it with people that we do not know and will not know. How do our tactics change during the game and how do the tactics of our team affect our tactics?
Possibly to determine whether people are willing to invest in a group even if their capital output is lower than the one of other investors, but everyone invests the same.
What would happen in a group when someone is and remains social and shares equaly... Will it effect te dicisions the others make?
To find out at what point people will decrease their contribution to a group project, considering the amount they get paid in return. \r\nI believe the person with the highest return rate (0.75) should make a bigger contribution then the 0.50 raters, by still making a bit of profit because of sheer luck by his/her rate.
To see if people choose themselves entirely over others, if people are okay with others earning more money even if it is because it was randomly assigned that they would.
To show how people base thei actions on irratioality, other players' actions and fairness towards the,
How the decision of one could help reduce the intensity of agressive deduction points that others make use. Decision making.
To see whether those earning more will still try and be fair to those earning less
I think the purpose of this experiment is to test what people think about what equality holds. Is equality contributing the same amount or is equality about receiving the same amount of points?
Finding out if people are willing to contribute to a team, or group, even if they get less out of it than the others might.
To understand how people behave in a situation where they do not know the actions of others; how poeple react on actions of other participants (try to cooperate/look just for their own profit); how people react to the success of others
To find out group mechanisms (in-group favorism) based on economic distribution and rewards; if bringing in a member from another group (out-group) influences these decisions
To estimate other people's contributions and to see in what what trust can be built.
the 0.75 participant must or should guide the others towards the commitment 'everbody gains the same amount'
Maybe this experiment is for indicating the payroll for the Human Resource Department.
Investigate people`s economic behaviour (maybe the experiement was about economic inequalities and taxation)
to trust your other members and to rate how much you want xx points
to see if people are willing to share the profit they possibly can have, cooperation between groups
The reactions between the group members and ho they interface in the feedback stage
To understand people's reaction to different weights of profit vis a vis contribution.
To see who group mebers interact ith each other and if they trust random people.
To determine in what way people cooperate in groups with the knowledge on certain aspects like the contribution of the other groupmembers and how this will have affect the colaboration in the future for the same group.
Before the final questionnaire I though it is about group identification. The hypothesis might be, when people identify themselves with the group, they try to be justice and give an amount to the group, so that everyone gets the same amount of money at the end. Because of the last question (right or left politically) I thought, maybe the experiment is also the relation between politcal views and group identification or justice.
I think the purpose was to create a behavior model for game theoretical situations.
small changes between experiments to find small differnces. Don't know what.
measuring people's fairness in economic transactions
To see what contributes to the decision about how much people contribute to a group account. So in this case the rate of what you get back, how much you get 'punished' by the others, how much the other participants contribute etc
observe people reactions in group? Trust mainly
I think the purpose of this expiriment is studying how people treat other people in their own or another group and how selfless people are (or rather how much money they are willing to give others in their own/another group at the cost of their own money)
To understand group behavourial psychology and understand how certain incentives make people choose decisions they wouldn't have chosen otherwise
To see if when you give people a color if this influences how much they identitify with a group. And then check if this influences how they play when you let them play within a group of a different color (the ' out-group'). And then maybe check if you play totally for a random assigned person in the room, if you are then tending to feel less connected and thus choose more for the option which is best for you.
See if people are tempted to put their own interests first, although this isn't most profitable for the group as a whole and on average not for the total individual income at the end. Also to see the effect this has on retribution and reciprocality.
To observe the influenece of decision making under other ppl judgements
I think the purpose of this experiment is mainly to see how peoples choices are affected by the choices of others. I think many people tend to get 'angry' or insulted when they get minus points during the game and here you can test if people then change their own strategy or stick with their own plan
I think the purpose of this experiment is to see whether people put higher outcomes for themselves first of if they put equal outcomes for everybody first. The question whether we see our selfs as on the political left or right probably will be linked to this, to see whether people who say they are more left will vote for more equal outcomes.
To find out whether people will cooperate to form an outcome which is optimal for all participants, and not so much for any single one participant.
I think the purpose was to test decision-making in terms of game theory, to see if people behaved in their own-self interest or if they were mindful of the impacts of their decisions on others.
the distribution of contributions. And the interactions within a 3 participant group.
I think the purpose of this experiment was to assess how distribution inequality infulences willingness to contribute to the common project. I belive that assigning negative point had the purpose to let participants to communicate non-verbally and thus influecne choices made in the subsequent round.
To see how people feel connected with each other when you' re part of the same group, but when it's anonimous.
see how people collaborate to obtain the maximum gain
How people think about equal distribution of goods
To see how people react on other peoples contribution, but also how much they are willing to give. So for example, if people are starting to drop their contribution, will you also drop your contribution? or find a way to higher the others contribution etcetera.
To photograph our reactions after each part
I think this experiment is about the game strategy. It also about punishing someone for not contributing at the group. \r\n
To see if you will give up points to hurt others that have done you wrong, or use it as a way to control others who do wrong
I think it is about how socially acceptable people think someone else's decisions are. And if you find another person not showing the, in your eyes, appropriate behaviour, how much you like to correct that person, at a bit of a cost of yourself.
See how much people are willing to share (or grant each other).\r\nAnd effects of (economic punishment ) deduction.
See how much people are prone to risking their own capital for both personal and general income and how they can cooperate in order to achieve a common goal
Understanding dynamics within groups, by seeing how people penalise each other and how that and other contributions change the participants perceptions of the group.
Researching the attitudes/assumptions/ideals of individuals and comparing that with own behavior in group settings.
I think the purpose of this experiment was too discover whether people in a group situation will choose for their own rewards or for the benefit of the group.
unfair\ (give less to the other person) if they could earn more.
To assess everyone's willigness to contribute to the group and whether it can be influenced willigness to earn money.
The purpose could be to understand how members of a group behave to achieve best results for each of them.
To test behavior in public good games with sanction possibilities, in combination with in and out group behavior.
Studying why people choose something\r\nStudying how peple make decisions in a specific group and under specific circumstances
The purpose of this experiment is to see to wat extent people follow their own self-interest or subject themselves to a collective good. It also looks at what decisions people make when faced with financial incentives.
The purpose (I think) is to see how people behave with rewards, earnings and deductions, in general and in diferent types of groups.
how people in groups, given complete information, deal with the fairness of different payoffs (due to nature/random events, being born in a wealthy family etc.)
Om te kijken hoe groepen reageren op elkaar. Wanneer ze bepaalde keuzes maken en wat er gebeurd wanneer er onverwachts een verstorend element aan wordt toegevoegd, het opeens wisselen van de groep.
Earn some money and the lab experiment is very interesting
To test collective invesement scenarios and the good/bad reasoning of participants, especially the negative-punishment reaction of using the deduction points\r\nReasoning of selfish-selflessness with financial reward
To see how people work in teams, considering their own rewards and that of others, while also being able to take away the rewards of others
To what exent people change their behavour depending on others' choices in a team. \r\nHow important is fairness to each one.\r\n
To see how students see the contribution that people should give to coommon goals considering they will not all profit the same. See if we punish other people for not contibuting to the common goal or not and how much are we willing to sacrifise others profit for our own profit.
To determine how people react to situations where money is involved in their cooperation with others and to determine whether people put themselves before others or not.
To research decisions people make in a group context. maybe how decisions are influenced by the group dynamic and whether it makes a difference if they are with people from the blue or orange group
To see how people react to contributions of society members and how they see the contributions in an ideal world.
To understand peoples decision making behind wealth contribution.
Investigate group cooperation- resource allocation
To see to what extent people value fairness/equality and are willing to punish others for not contributing to a public good.
To see what you would give to others. knowing that you can also make money of them.
Studying how other people's perceived contributions affect your own and your identification with a specific group
The effect of communities ideas on socioeconomic behaviour and level among each other, common goals and interest are more important than the ones that based on the individuals. Once the objective of the community is determined and its consequences are tangible, other people from the outside is forced by allegations (in this case deductions, and maybe it can be translated as discrimination againts others on community level) to join the objective of the community.
\r\n- To examine the behavioural pattern of people based on the choices of others \r\n- To identify the thresholds or limits of choices and how indivudals react to these
the purpose of the experiment is probably to test some diffrent situations of the prisoners dilemma. Are people willing to accept the fact that someone, by luck, earns more money? or are they willing to spend there own money just to make sure the rich person will earn less money.
To analyze how the choices of others affect ours when making decisions, if being deducted from points will affect how many we will deduct from others and same for the contributions
Tio look at equality, and how it is actually perceived and to the extent it is welcomed when applied to people in real life (ie: how tolerant we are to the enforcement of equal point onto us all, and how we punish or shame those who contribute with less or act seemingly 'clever' and sly). Maybe this could make us think about communism? I also think it could do with teamwork, and participants' attachment to fairness and justice (ie: what happens when one of the participants contributes with less and yet earns more, vs how they'd desire they all contributed with what's proportionally convenient for them whilst attaining the common good and earn equitable amounts of benefaction.)
To test how people react in suitations when they know nothing about the other players, do they still give, or seek just for personal gain
To see how people make decision in group level, particulalry in some profit-oriented circumstances?
To look at behaviour of people regarding collective action, fairness, strategy, retribution, and cooperation in a situation with fixed inequality.
To see how people interact with eachother when they are in front of a computer screen, which makes them anonymus. To see how selfish people are in general
Research of people's behaviour with money advantage/disadvantages.
To assess if spending patterns alter according to a group's contribution. Also new member appears to be more generous to assess if other group member would be influenced to share more. The believed fair amount to share is consistently asked to establish change in opinion.
To understand the effects that the context has on your desicions. It reflects how just/fair desicions are made and how these are affected by the other people's approach to it. Eg. if other people seem to be just and seek for equality amongst all member of the group, it is most likely that you will also adopt a just/fair approach in your desicions. \r\n
how people whil behave when they know they could be punished
I think it has something to do with how long it takes until the whole of the group reaches the best possible decision, and how the role of unequal beginnings and deduction points influences this.
I think the purpose of the experiment is to see what choices people make when you can win money. Whether they only choose for themselves or whether they choose for the whole group. also regarding the percentage that you get out of it, and whether this influences your decision.
The effectiveness of the punishment in a sort of public good game.
To examine if people share honestly or choose for their own good
To analyze how people interact with each other when they play behind a screen.
I think the purpose is to obtain an understanding of people's behavior in a setting where their own benefit is dependent not only their own but on other people's choices as well.
political views on the distribution of wealth
The purpose can be that the researchers find out how people make choses when it's about deviding your money and trusting others. How you react when a person from an other group joins your first group, if that changes your behavior and trust.
To check whether people are willing to make someone elses paymeny higer, even if they don't contribute from this themself. And check if people change what they give to the collective project during the rounds.
To analyze joint decision making based on inputs from a group setting.
To find out how risk-averse people are, how coopartive they are and whether they punish others for not cooperating.
It may question how group influences decision making. The expectations of the decisions and moves of the other members group. Working together on a common goal is researched on its influences on decision making processes.
To examine how people would punish others who wronged them
Finding out the curve of the numbers that people are willing to pay to punish others for not cooperating to achieve a common goal (in money values).
To find out how people are influenced in their decision making by choices of others.
To check how people behave when they are in a certain group compared to when an outsider joins that particular group.
to learn how much and to what extent people are willing to share or withhold resources, influenced by the contributions of others.
disponibility to take responsibilities in public.
I think the purpose is to fid out how people behave, if they notice unfairness in a group.
to test the influence that decision making can have in group situations especially when anonymity is maintained.
I think it's something with politics. What do people feel to give, does everyone need to get the same amount or is it just all playing by yourself.
game theory, but also prosocial behavior in terms of monetary gain. how our generation is (hopefully) becoming more fair, trying to decrease income inequality, but also to map this. how consistent we are, how our behavior changes based on the decisions of others
To analyze how people behave anonymously when there is money is involved?..
To see if people care more about equality than getting the most profit for everyone? To see if there is social control if people are 'too selfish'?
distribution of wealth, fairness and taxes
I suppose that the purpose of the experiment is to understand the behaviour of the participants and their choices in different situations.
Investigating the behaviour of people when managing common pool resources.
To see how people act when given the opportunity to share or to benefit the most for themselves.
I think you want to examine how much people are prepared to offer when their own posessions are destroyed
To see how people react to others decisions. For example, the first round you get an idea of what others are playing like and then possibly/probably one bases their next choices on that. It is to compare the risk versus reward.
To see whether participants would punish each other for displayin non - altruistic behaviour
The purpose might be to research how people think about equal income distribution in general and how they decide on a smaller level. Maybe also how much a feeling of fair or unfair outweights costs of punishment over income.
People sometimes profit more from group contributions. This experiment might determine whether people try to either equalize this difference or try to benefit from it.
To see how people work in groups when someone has an unfair bias for success. Probably seeing more how people are trying to benefit themselves the most. \r\nThe opinions of people who have been taken advantage of and if that makes a person more greedy?
I think it is to see how people react to eachother based off of certain incentives. It is also interesting to see how certin members of the group 'correct' other's behaviour if they do not agree and probably people can find an equilibrium after a few rounds so that everyone is the best off they can be without anyone else being worse off
I believe the purpose is to view how individualistic people handle - and to understand their behaviour knowing that it will influence that of others
If people can make rational or/and decisions, especially when they had the advantage of 0.75. Would they be fair, meaing it is optimal for their earings, too, or they would just use this power to bully people? I saw both cases in the teams I was assinged to
to see how members act to each other known that some are more prevelidged
To see how people act when they have a common interest.
To identify people who prefer to workd in groups or individual.
To see how people react to unequal payment, if it influences the amount the advantaged person needs to contribute
Fairness goal of people, in most situations one of the players will have a higher income than the others. How willing are people to punish someone who either ride free or who earn much more than the others.
To determine if people are willing to let the group benefit and therefore benefit themselves.
I think the experiment was about favoritism, both of the individual and the group.
How people can be influenced by other's decitions and how they influence others to change their mind as well.
To see what penalty a groupmember gives another groupmember when he doesn't make an adequate contribution.
To find out when people sanction othre people, and how equal they would like the outcomes to be.
The effect of reward/punishment on decision-making?
To see what choices one makes to make as many points as possible. Also whether or not one is more interested in making lots of points, or more interested in an even distribution of said points.
To see how self-centric people are when it comes to sharing with others or keeping it for yourself.
To measure human behaviour regardign decision making processes with monetary payoffs.
The relationship between fairness and contribution
To see how people react about ohter's behaviour
Compare the evolution of left and right tendencies throught time.
To see how people react when having the advantage contra the disadvantage, and if people will give more if it stays netural for them but benefits another.
to find out wat people choose in different situations. If they will be egoistic or if they will be generous. And if the changes are affected by the responses of others
To see how people make decisions when they know they can get a punishment if they are to eager.
Research on how your decisions affect other's decisions and the other way around.

Can you think of any real life situations in which you have to make similar cont
Yes, this experiment made me think of how taxes work in society (and specifically how wealth is distributed), and how we are assigned to pay a certain amout of money depending on our earnings, with wealthier people paying more money to the general contribution, which will hopefully then have a ripple effect, benefitting everyone in the long run and contributing to a more equal society (although this is more in theory than in practice).
Rich or privileged people getting richer at the expense of working classes and expecting the working classes to do all the participation. At the same time, being given privilege or funds at a later stage is tempting to accumulate if people struggled with that before.
In any sharing situation, eg: as a child you share your halloween candy but how much do you share. Also social friendships where you buy something one time, you expect someone to buy it the next time.
I think in real life you know the persons with whom you find yourself in similar situations, so no
Not really, maybe when you work and not everyone earns the same amount of money?
all the time; when I am recycling, deciding to not take the plane in order to pollute less etc
Yes, I can imagine in a collaboration of several small companies that start their own investment/saving scheme but they invest it differently, therefore the output varies for every investor. Or in sports betting, where everyone might have invested the same amount, but then betted with different numbers, hence different outputs.
Deciding how much money to spend on another person's birthday gifts
Contributing to household shared products which need to be bought and the cost shared equally, even if others earn differently
If you are planning to buy a gift for someone's birthday as a group and everyone is unsure how much they would like to contribute and wait for other people's suggestions to form their own.
in a group all participants should benefit equally
For real life, sometimes when you did the majority of the tasks, but your earning is not equal to what you paid.
een lening geven aan vrienden met of zonder rente\r\n\r\n
1. Being the boss in a company and deciding the worker's income\r\n2. Giving and recieving birthday/christmas gifts\r\n3. Giving (or not giving) to charity
Group project where one of the people values a good grade more than the others.
Pooled bet with expected returns and one experienced better.
When for example students have a certain deposit for housekeeping or even social economic situations for example how we look towards rich people and taxes etc.
Sharing a sandwich with your friend that you bring from home and you cut it at home. You can either cut it in exactly half, so that both get an equal amount, or just take more for yourself (it is important that you cut it at home, because anonymity must be given like in this experiment).
the non-cooperative parts on the stock-exchange.\r\ncooperative parts: not with finances, maybe with energy in collaborations
while using public resources such as clean water
If you share a cake with someone and have to decide who gets the biggest piece idk
In real life situation if you are living with other roommates then this kind of contribution decisions can be made or are necessary
Yes, many people have a mentality of 'if you do something for me I do something for you' and a the same time 'if you don't do something for me I won't do something for you either'. This is reflected in the experiment
Who gets to sit in the last empty seat in the bus, who gets to take a free spot in the library.
Politics - taxes (higher for those with more wealth)
In gambling games. If you win at poker, but no one put money on the table you do not win at all. So you want people to put money on the table by putting money on the table yourself.
When you go to a birthday an you have to choose how many money you want to spend on a present (or just to give). You have think sometimes about the gifts you recieved in the past.
Maybe in terms of tax paying and welfare benefits. The richer people shoud contribute a bit more so that the less fortenuate can have a life as well.
Not quite similar (see below). \r\nBut other than that, getting paid for a job done with others. \r\nAnd the other way around, sharing the costs of a party come to mind.
Various instances of taxation? Penalising others by suffering damage yourself is the part I find difficult to see in ordinary situations.
Group assignments at university and all the struggles related to it ;)
It could be used as a metaphor for real life situations, sometimes you contribute a lot, however, you do not receive sufficient contribution back (daily life, student group projects)
A beggar once asked for a cup of coffee from me. I was low on cash myself, but seeing that he really needed the beverage, I bought him coffee nonetheless. I knew I would face difficulties sorting out my financial matters a bit, but the donation to him brought me more gratification. Sharing is good, even if it means hurting one's interests - something today's consumerist and competitive socities have yet to understand.
I can imagine this can be applied to contribution to household tasks in a shared house and to contribution to work on a group assignment.
When you're working on a group project a similar situation like this could develop.
Yes, i an think of it as a foreign student trying to collect in a group, for example, for groceries or for shared lunch. Somebody will always contribute more than others, and some will eat or drink more than others, even more of what they contributed.
economic situation of a country, economic bipolarisation, social situation, status etc.
Wanneer je spelletjes speelt met vrienden en familie.
In every university group project. \r\nEven though you start-off allocating tasks equally, in the end you end-up doing things that would be better allocated in terms of each one's competencies.\r\n
bring what you want\ there's always people putting a lot of effort others just buy the cheapeast thing in the supermarket
To measure cost and benifit when working together
I think of government provided products, where everyone contributes. However, the money is not worth more out of nothing, I think that is a bit unrealistic.
Getting a budget for an evernt and devciding how much each participant should get out of this budget.
fair\ during the game and I do the same in real life.
When people refuse to contribute for whatever event (e.g. a party) because they do not want to spent money that is going to be shared with others
Maybe when you are working and the payment you get for your job.
Yes. If you come from an advantaged group (ie: 0.75 return players), you might feel inclined to contribute with more in order to boost the common pit of points or money, and then allow others less advantaged (ie: 0.5 return players). This could be seen, for example, in taxes, where policy makers might make the elite pay higher tax and those impoverished, less tax.
I'm thinking politics (just because you asked a question about it)- no not really
Not sure exactly, but maybe voting or donating money for charity? or political debate, in Dutch tweede kamer? not sure.
No, I don't think there is any situation where the only way to pressure or persuade people in contributing to a shared project is taking money away from them.
Group projects for example. When every member of the group gets the same grade but they haven't put the same amount of effort
In real life, on the lighter side it concerns contributions to a friendly meetup (i.e. how to split the bill). Politically, it can concern what fair amount someone considers taxation to be
Do you choose for the group of for yourself\
When you have to choose who to eliminate in a game and you make a choice hoping no one sees. Eventhough I played extremely fair in this game.
In real life you can see this if people want to join the health care system.
In social programs, where budgets have to allocated, for example.
Do I donate to a local charity/organisation in order to achieve a common goal for the neighbourhood, or do I freeride?\r\n\r\nDo I, as a company in an oligopoly market, cooperate in an illegal cartel in order to achieve bigger profits for each player?
For example to decide how much people have to pay for their health insurance (based on income, which means the more your income is, the more you ahve to pay).
Being in a committee where members have different functions and a scholarship has to be divides between you and these members of the committee, who all contribute to the group differently
preparing for group assignment\r\nbuying things for the house with your partner\r\ninvesting in relationships emotionally
Group projects, reminds me of freeriding.
Yes, with sharing money on a holiday on a shared account for example
Maybe if you are going on dinner, but 1 person earns money and the other 2 are students (or have no work), do they all need to pay the same?
not so much, only in experiments and examples of game theory. perhaps with roommates, deciding who contributes what. but usually it is equal
Taxes, although you cannot choose how much taxes you pay. Maybe a marriage.
Maybe in a queue, you know eventually you will get to the front but maybe someone cuts in front of you then do you accept it and just continue.
Taxes even though it is mandatory people prefer to pay less even if it does generally benefit everyone. Also tipping at resturants, buying gifts for others etc.
In workgroups, this might not be with money but with contribution of work and input.
Some school group projects might have had similar circumstances.
not with the same incentives but maybe if you think about a group project you all have to decide how much effort you put in and only after the effort is put in you could tell another member they did not put in enough effort. so different incentives but similar situation
For example when distributing points in a group work - how much does each receive?
It reminded me of how people rule buisnesses. Others have deep or at least basic understanding of math and how investment works. have strategies and basic human decency/moral code and others (like my second team) are only doing it so to take advantage of others. Tey were unreasonably revengeful., extremly hateful, completly irrational decisions with zero concistency. That's how it would feel wroking with Trump, I guess.
eg having dinner with friends, one earn way more than the others: sharing the costs and person who earns more pays more
Whether or not to eat meat (for a better climate)
Well, it is with taxes. If you earn more, you pay more taxes on your income
Manager, who gets higher returns than employees, which can be seen as unfair by the employees. Then the employees can either accept it and contribute 100% or already contribute less. Or they can contribute 100%, but punish their manager by secretly performing bad.
When in a group you all have contribute an amount of money to buy for example drinks on a party and one does not contributes the same as the others, but still drinks as much as the rest (gains relatively more than the rest) i guess he/she more likely to get negative reactions from the other group members.
Many situations, starting from a planned trip to run a bussiness with some partners.
Yes, writing a academic paper/making a presentation.
yes, I do. For example the taxes people need to pay.
Taxes payment, group projects, social policies.
Sure, I think we come across choices like this all the time. Both with money, but also with time. How much time do I committ to this project if the other participants contribute this much? etc.

If you have any other comments on the experiment, you can give them in the text
No, just very curious what theory is behind this experiment
Should make every person obtain the equal chance to get a 0.75 proportion to allocate the contribution allowance
It would be good to have more information on the second half of the experiment in the written instructions - so we know what to expect, with all the guesses, etc
I think maybe you can also random the return of the members for each round.
I felt preassured to give more when I got deduction points but I did not see the point in giving deduction points myself because I did not feel that it would benefit me or any of the other participants.
Sometimes people might make certain choices just for practical reasons because they might want to be to quick and overlooked certain aspects.
I think the amount of time for the hypothetical amounts was not enough (0,2,4,6,...). I did not have enough time to understand it properly.
I was surprised at my own anger for stupid people that didn't optimize our common gains (and mine off course :) ).
Some questions felt a bit random, for example the one where you would say how much one should contribute when there is some average amount from the other participants. That was a hard one because you don't know the average when you decide how much to contribute. So my answers were a bit random too
At one question I got a bit confused. It was the question of what you would think someone would have to contribute if you saw the average contribution of the other players. \r\nAt person A (that had 0.75 reward) I first thought that the average contribution ment the combination of the 2 players contribution. As the timer kept ticking, I stressed and filled in something quickly, at the second question person B (that had 0.50 reward) I did concider the average to be the average of 2 players and 1 contribution. However, here as well, the timer was already at 0. I believe I have probably not filled in these questions very well.
Let me know the outcomes! Very interesting.
Except for envy there is no real reason (as far as I can think of) for not allowing the 'lucky' participant the reap more benefits than the others. I do not think this is life like, normally when someone gains a disproportional amount, it is at the cost of others.
I found it disturbing that people feel the need to penalise the 0.75 person, even though he/she contributes the maximum. Sign of an idiot or a sociopath frankly.
Not enough time for the part were you had to choose the most appropriate income per average contribution of the group.
The experiment could have been better designed.
I think the amount of time to fill in the (second) hypothetical contributions of a player with a share of .5 was too little.
I thought that showing a countdown of the amount of people who still had stuff to fill in was really nice. Last time you just had to sit in front of a static screen, while now you actually had some indication of how long the waiting times would be.
I like this kind of experiment, something can be improved is the website, if there is a cancel registration button that will be good
Really well conducted experiement but there are sometimes lengthy waits for participants to finish. It would be better if you could progress activities as a group rather than a whole experimental cohort
I dont think i was actually playing with the others
- Slightly repetitive in asking for people to write what they personally believe is a good contribution from each player, and to guess what other players would do
I already participated to an experiment that kind of did the same
people are either stupid or stupider. In the first case they just don't understand their own interest or the rules of the game while in the second case they understand them but they become greedy soon
The experiment was very entertaining. I truly enjoy the review placed at the end of each round to allow me to see how other play. Quite interesting.\r\n
waiting time is too long, should be compensated
By giving people 100 points if they guess the same numerical answer as other participants in the questions ''what do you feel is the optimal value one should contribute towards the group account?'', this can cause participants to not answer the number they truly feel is the most desired number, but rather answer a number they feel is likely to be a common answer in order to earn more money (for example, instead of answering 18 you answer 20 because this is the highest and a round number which can be a more common answer, so the potential of earning more money is more important than answering the question honestly).\r\n\r\nIt would also be fun to do the same experiment, except everyone earns a 0.75 multiplier.
it was interesting but i think the members who were earning 0.5 that decided to keep on contributing everything they had were doing too much, which is not a good thing.
communicate\ via the software. E.g. via more payment and contribution stages and a tool to not only deduct points from others, but also to add extra points.
not sure it's fair to pay others more...hopefully everyone gets the same payout, since we sat here for the same amount of time. otherwise it's not fair, not sure I would participate anymore.
I thought there was too little time to guess what a person A and a person B would do in 10 or so different situations. I wanted to have more time to calculate the outcomes.
Very clear instructions, except for the very last task, which was shown on the computer. It was a little unclear to me how many points I would eventually assign myself and others. (Even though I understood the random-factor)
In the reivew part, it would be interesting to see what happens if points are added to you when you deduct some of your group member's points
Clear instructions and everything went smooth.
implemented other techniques that make it appear faster than the last one, and very friendly to understand.
I don't get the point of guessing how many points assgned by other members.
I was fast with all the questions, but at the question about the dividing (10 rows) I didn't had enough time.
Fun experiment! I'm wondering what the outcome is. Good luck processing all the data :)