  A longstanding idea in the literature on human cooperation is that
cooperation should be reinforced when conditional cooperators are more likely
to interact. In the context of social networks, this idea implies that
cooperation should fare better in highly clustered networks such as cliques
than in networks with low clustering such as random networks. To test this
hypothesis, we conducted a series of web-based experiments, in which 24
individuals played a local public goods game arranged on one of five network
topologies that varied between disconnected cliques and a random regular graph.
In contrast with previous theoretical work, we found that network topology had
no significant effect on average contributions. This result implies either that
individuals are not conditional cooperators, or else that cooperation does not
benefit from positive reinforcement between connected neighbors. We then tested
both of these possibilities in two subsequent series of experiments in which
artificial seed players were introduced, making either full or zero
contributions. First, we found that although players did generally behave like
conditional cooperators, they were as likely to decrease their contributions in
response to low contributing neighbors as they were to increase their
contributions in response to high contributing neighbors. Second, we found that
positive effects of cooperation were contagious only to direct neighbors in the
network. In total we report on 113 human subjects experiments, highlighting the
speed, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness of web-based experiments over those
conducted in physical labs.
