The anticommons dilemma is not a well known dilemma, but wellworth studying as it has a practical impact on individuals and society when it occurs. It occurs when multiple people co-own a resource...Show moreThe anticommons dilemma is not a well known dilemma, but wellworth studying as it has a practical impact on individuals and society when it occurs. It occurs when multiple people co-own a resource or property who have to grant each other permission in order to use or sell the resource. This study explores whether in an anticommons dilemma a participant’s feeling of ownership over a resource increases when he or she has to put effort into obtaining it. Half of the participants (Ntotal = 208) had to exert effort by doing an effort task in order to influence their Willingness To Accept (WTA) value, i.e. the amount of points they are willing to accept as payment in order to let the other co-owner use the resource. The participants also filled in a Psychological Ownership scale. Effort did not significantly influence psychological ownership, but psychological ownership did significantly influence WTA. There was no significant WTA difference between the (un)equal effort treatment conditions. The effects of effort are further analysed and discussed.Show less
Objectives. In this study, the impact of observability and dependence on one’s willingness to cooperate has been investigated. Therefore, a volunteer’s dilemma was set up: a dilemma in which only...Show moreObjectives. In this study, the impact of observability and dependence on one’s willingness to cooperate has been investigated. Therefore, a volunteer’s dilemma was set up: a dilemma in which only one person from a group needs to make a sacrifice in order to create a benefit for the collective. Method. In total, 147 participants (aged 19-66) were divided over four different conditions. Each participant was asked to volunteer or not, in order to complete the group task. All participants belonged to a subgroup within a larger group. Subsequently, the decisions that were made by participants belonging to the dependence condition, also had consequences for the larger group. Participants in the observability condition, were being observed while making this volunteering decision. Participants in the Obs & Dep condition were both being observed and their decisions also had consequences for the larger group. Finally, a control condition was set up in which participants were neither being observed, nor dependent. Results. Participants belonging to the dependence condition did not volunteer significantly more compared to the non-dependence conditions. This was not in line with the hypothesis. Participants belonging to the observability condition, were also expected to volunteer significantly more. Against expectations, participants belonging to the observability condition, did not volunteer significantly more than was found in the non-observability conditions. Finally, a hypothesis was set up stating that most volunteering was expected to be found in the Obs & Dep condition. Results showed two unexpected significant results: participants in the control condition and the observability condition, volunteered significantly more compared to the Obs & Dep condition. Conclusions. None of the hypotheses that were set up beforehand, were confirmed. The conditions participants belonged to, did not cause the expected effects. It is possible that the sample that was used, already consisted of cooperative participants themselves. This is why the conditions people belonged to, could not make a significant difference. Further research is necessary to investigate whether our variables would make a difference when another sample is used and to investigate what the influence of an online setting exactly is.Show less
