Do spouses cooperat An experimental investigation Assessment

Study Overview

• The study investigates whether cohabiting heterosexual couples cooperate in one-shot Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) games compared to strangers.

• Sample: 100 French couples (heterosexual, cohabiting at least 1 year, age 25–65, mix of married and unmarried, ~48% with children).

• Goal: Explore defection behavior, the trade-off between efficiency and equality, and how socio-demographic and psychological factors affect household decision-making.

Methodology

1. Prisoner’s Dilemma Game

   • Each spouse plays two PD games: one with their partner and one with a same-sex stranger.

   • Payoffs structured to allow cooperation (efficient) or defection (selfish).

   • All choices kept anonymous; only aggregate earnings revealed to participants.

   • Follow-up: 40% played a repeat PD with their partner to test for familiarization effects.

2. Distribution Task

   • Individuals choose between an equal split (A) and a more efficient but unequal split (B) of points.

   • Designed to identify motivations: selfishness, altruism, efficiency-seeking, inequality aversion.

   • Helps explain why spouses may defect even when cooperation is possible.

3. Socio-demographic & Psychological Variables

   • Marital status, presence of children, and relationship duration collected.

   • Dyadic adjustment scale used to measure harmony within couples.

Key Findings

1. Prisoner’s Dilemma

   • Spousal cooperation: 72.5% cooperate, 27.5?fect.

   • Strangers: Only 42.5% cooperate, 57.5?fect.

   • Gender differences: Slightly higher cooperation among men with partners; women more cooperative with strangers.

   • Coordination: 55% of couples mutually cooperate; 10% mutually defect; 35% mismatch in decisions.

   • Familiarization effect: Cooperation rises to 86% in repeated PD with partner.

2. Distribution Task

   • Majority aim to maximize joint couple income, though 42% do not consistently do so.

   • Individual preferences influence decisions, revealing selfishness, inequality aversion, and altruism affect spousal behavior.

   • Efficiency-seeking more likely when potential gains are high.

3. Household Characteristics & Defection

   • Married couples, couples with children, and those with weak joint-income preferences show higher defection.

   • Presence of children introduces inefficiencies because household consumption often includes public goods that cannot be fully allocated to one spouse.

   • Marriage contracts and limited commitment models explain some selfish behaviors.

Theoretical Implications

• Supports non-cooperative household models (type II): spouses do not always act to maximize joint household welfare.

• Shows the importance of micro-norms (household-specific sharing rules) in predicting cooperation.

• Highlights that efficiency assumptions in household economics may be too strong, as real couples sometimes behave opportunistically, even with repeated interactions.

Conclusion

• While spouses are more cooperative than strangers, cooperation is not universal.

• Individual motivations, household characteristics, and socio-demographic factors strongly influence whether spouses cooperate.

• The study provides a laboratory validation for non-cooperative household theories and demonstrates the role of trust, social preferences, and public-good consumption in household decision-making.

Assessment Requirements 

The assessment required the student to:

1. Analyze cooperation in household decision-making: Examine how cohabiting heterosexual couples behave in one-shot Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) games compared to strangers.

2. Explore defection and efficiency trade-offs: Identify motivations for cooperation or defection, including efficiency, equality, and selfishness.

3. Consider socio-demographic and psychological factors: Study how marital status, presence of children, relationship duration, and dyadic adjustment influence household decisions.

4. Conduct a Distribution Task analysis: Assess individual preferences (altruism, selfishness, inequality aversion) in splitting points between equal vs. efficient but unequal outcomes.

5. Apply theoretical models: Relate findings to non-cooperative household models and micro-norms in household economics.

6. Present findings and interpretations: Summarize key outcomes from PD games and distribution tasks, highlighting gender differences, coordination rates, and familiarization effects.

7. Demonstrate understanding of household decision-making mechanisms: Show awareness of trust, social preferences, and public-good consumption in shaping behavior.

Approach Taken by the Academic Mentor 

Step 1: Understanding the Study Context

• The mentor guided the student to first grasp the study objectives: comparing spousal cooperation versus cooperation with strangers, and the role of household characteristics in decision-making.

• Emphasis was placed on identifying key variables: cooperation rates, efficiency/equality trade-offs, and socio-demographic characteristics.

Step 2: Structuring the Assessment

• The mentor advised organizing the assessment into clear sections:

  • Introduction: Present study goals and relevance.

  • Methodology: Summarize PD games, distribution task, socio-demographic and psychological measurements.

  • Results: Highlight cooperation/defection rates, gender differences, familiarization effects, and distribution task outcomes.

  • Discussion: Interpret results using theoretical frameworks (non-cooperative household models, micro-norms, efficiency assumptions).

  • Conclusion: Reflect on practical and theoretical implications.

Step 3: Data Analysis and Interpretation

• Students were guided to extract numerical and behavioral insights:

  • PD cooperation rates: spouses (72.5%), strangers (42.5%).

  • Coordination patterns within couples.

  • Efficiency vs. equality preferences in distribution tasks.

• Mentor encouraged linking results to household characteristics (marriage, children, joint-income preferences) to explain defection patterns.

Step 4: Applying Theory

• Mentor instructed the student to connect empirical findings to non-cooperative household theory.

• Highlighted micro-norms, public-good consumption, and individual motivations (selfishness, altruism, inequality aversion) as explanatory tools.

Step 5: Writing the Assessment

• Students drafted sections sequentially, ensuring:

  • Each section addressed a learning objective.

  • Findings were backed by clear evidence.

  • Discussion included both interpretation and theoretical implications.

Outcome and Learning Objectives Covered

Outcome Achieved:

• A structured assessment demonstrating understanding of household cooperation dynamics.

• Clear evidence of how socio-demographic and psychological factors affect decision-making.

• Effective application of non-cooperative household theory to real-life couple interactions.

Unlock Academic Success with Our Assignment Solutions!

Looking for guidance on your assignment? You can download our sample solution to understand the structure, approach, and key insights. Please remember: this sample is for reference only submitting it as your own work can lead to plagiarism issues.

Want a stress-free solution that’s 100% original and tailored to your requirements? Our team of professional academic writers can craft a fresh, plagiarism-free assignment just for you. Ordering a custom solution ensures:

• Originality Guaranteed – unique content written from scratch.

• High-Quality Research – backed by credible sources and academic standards.

• Tailored to Your Requirements – formatted and structured exactly as per your guidelines.

• Deadline-Friendly – delivered on time, every time.

Avoid academic penalties and boost your grades with confidence.

Disclaimer: The sample solution is meant for reference and learning purposes only. Copying or submitting it as your own work is strictly prohibited.