Figure 1.
Flowchart of each of the 20 rounds of the study from the perspective of each participant.
Participants' decisions are in bold.
Figure 2.
Average manipulation in Study 1.
(a) Percentage of endowments (and standard error of the means) spent by high-ranking participants (solid line) and low-ranking participants (dashed line) on increasing the perceived threat level across rounds and (b) this manipulation overall. Positive (negative) numbers represent paying to raise (decrease) perceived threat levels. High- and low-ranking participants both paid to raise threat levels on average (both ps <.005), but high-ranking participants did so more than did low-ranking participants (b = 0.98, z = 3.63, p<.001).
Table 1.
Effects on independent variables on manipulation and contributions in Study 1.
Figure 3.
Average percentage of endowments contributed to the group by high- and low-ranking participants in Study 1 at different perceived probabilities of group failure.
Contributions increased as perceived threats increased (b = 0.31, z = 15.5, p<.001). High-ranking participants contributed a lower percent of their endowment than did low-ranking participants (b = −3.70, z = −2.20, p = .028).
Table 2.
Effects of independent variables on manipulation and contributions in Study 2.
Figure 4.
Average percent of endowment (and standard error of the means) spent on increasing the perceived threat level, Study 2.
Table 3.
Effects of independent variables on manipulation and contributions in Study 3.
Figure 5.
Average percent of endowment (and standard error of the means) spent on increasing the perceived threat level, Study 3.