The data folder for the “Putting in effort for the benefit of all: the role of reward and effort requirements” project contains experimental data and project materials. Experimental data The Experimental data consists of one “Data_with_description_RM” file in .xlsx format. This file holds data from the effort task, where participants were required to declare a number of times they wanted to squeeze a handgrip device for group benefit or individual gain before actually completing the task. The file contains: • information about participants’ unique identifier (column A), group allocation (column B), gender (column C), age (column D), the condition they were in (column E), and the pot to which they contributed effort to begin with (column F), information about the number of trials participants intended to contribute to the individual (column H) and public pot (column I) and how many trials they actually contributed to the different pots (individual – column J, group – column K), as well as information about the round of the experiment (column G). Experimental data also includes transcripts from the online chatroom. This includes 36 files in .docx format. The files contain transcripts from the online chats from Round 1 and Round 2 for each group separately. Each chat participant is marked by their unique identifier. Project materials include two files in .docx format: the detailed information sheet given to participants, and the combined brief information sheet and consent form document.The need for new ideas in macroeconomics is evident. Most macroeconomists not only failed to recognise the weaknesses in the global economy before the financial crisis, their main macroeconomic model specifically excluded the possibility of financial vulnerability. Assumptions about human behaviour and how markets operate have undermined the effectiveness of macroeconomics as a guide for practical policy making. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) is the UK's foremost macroeconomics research institute outside of the university sector. As our mission is to understand the economic forces that shape peoples' lives and to influence policy. We are free of political and commercial interests and the constraints that can inhibit university departments. Our network, Rebuilding Macroeconomics, would start the transformation of macroeconomics back into a useful policy science. We have created a team of 25 world-class social scientists from economics, psychology, anthropology, sociology, neuroscience, economic history, political science, biology and physics all renowned for challenging mainstream ideas to spear-head this effort. Rebuilding Macroeconomics will challenge the central assumptions and methods of modern macroeconomics and identify the building blocks for a new and genuinely relevant macroeconomics. Our network will create ran opportunity for scholars, policy makers and practitioners to coalesce around a substantive macroeconomic policy question and to explore, learn from and challenge each other's assumptions and ways of thinking and to consider possible new methods of investigation. The Rebuilding Macroeconomics leadership team of will provide guidance by finding broad research agendas through a process of both guidance and discovery, through dialogue across the UK, that (a) directly address important macroeconomic policy issues, (b) facilitate research that would not be done otherwise, (c) bring new methodologies to bear in macroeconomics, and (d) that can attract enough scholars to launch and sustain an effective future research agenda. Our leadership team will commission several targeted proof-of-concept 'pilot projects' that are truly innovative, most promising and additional to existing macroeconomic research. The decisions will be taken in an open and transparent manner as befits public funds. An Advisory Group will oversee the disbursements to ensure that the projects meet our requirements listed above. The RM network will offer value for money. Most Co-Investigators have signalled their willingness to work on a pro bono basis to maximise the amount of research money available for the best ideas. The allocation of funds will be made public through a transparent process. NIESR will ensure that the Network engages with the public through social and traditional media. We will use podcasts and an App to describe the 'pilot projects' and reconnect with the public through a series of televised or recorded lively debates on key macroeconomic issues that define our research agenda. The Network will also engage with other networks in the UK and overseas to ensure as wide as possible influence and to achieve synergies with existing ESRC investments. The team will ensure that the Network is sustainable by engaging with student groups and doctoral students and catalysing innovative and interdisciplinary ideas for policy relevant research. We will look to incorporate some the most promising ideas in school and college curriculums. At the end of the funding period, the leadership team will carry out a comprehensive review and deliver a roadmap for future macroeconomic research. This will include an analysis of the areas of greatest research potential, greatest policy relevance and the bottlenecks to be overcome to realise the full potential. Given the current exceptional economic circumstances, the Network has the opportunity to have a far-reaching and very positive impact on society.
- Modified Public Goods Game in which participants contributed effort (grip squeezes) instead of tokens. 2. Online chat The details of the methods are as follows: The basic experimental set up was based on an established behavioural economics paradigm of a Public Goods Game. In the standard version of the game participants are given a number of tokens and are then asked to choose how many of these tokens to put into a public pot. The tokens in this pot are then multiplied by a factor (greater than one and less than the number of players) and this ‘public good’ is divided evenly between participants. Two modifications to this game were made in this project: 1) instead of contributing tokens, participants were asked to contribute physical effort (hand grip squeezes), and 2) the amount of effort exerted by participants determined the monetary reward received at the end of the experiment. For practical reasons (equipment limitations), participants were not exerting effort simultaneously, but rather each participant attended the experimental session individually. A group was formed of four participants in a row, and the final payout was depend on their combined performance. The experimental set up was as follows: 1) Each participant was assigned to a group of five people and asked to attend two experimental sessions (Round 1 and Round 2) individually. During each experimental session participants were required to exert effort by squeezing a handgrip device 40 times. Each squeeze was associated with a small monetary reward. Participants had to decide how they wanted to distribute the proceeds from the effort trials – they could keep them for themselves or put them in a public pot. Proceeds in the public pot would be multiplied by 1.5 and divided evenly between all group members. 2) Upon arrival to an experimental session, participants were given an opportunity to experience how effortful the task was by squeezing the hand grip device ten times. 3) Then, participants were asked to indicate how many effortful trials out of 40 they wanted to complete for their own benefit, and how many they wanted to contribute to the public pot (Intended Contributions). 4) This was followed by the execution phase, during which participants were required to squeeze the handgrip device. They either started by squeezing for individual or group pot, and were told they could switch the pot at any point by pressing the ‘s’ button on a keyboard. Number of trials participants performed for the individual and public pots was recorded (Actual Contributions) 5) After each experimental session, participants took part in an anonymous online chat with other members of their group, where information about individual contributions and group performance (wins) was shared and discussed Participants: Participants were recruited using Queen Mary Research Volunteers scheme at Queen Mary University of London and the word of mouth. Ninety participants completed the study
