Social Exchange and the Reciprocity Roller Coaster: Evidence from the Life and Death of Virtual Teams

References

• Acemoglu D, Jackson MO (2015) History, expectations, and leadership in the evolution of social norms. Rev. Econom. Stud. 82(2):423–456.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ambrus A, Greiner B (2012) Imperfect public monitoring with costly punishment: An experimental study. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(7):3317–3332.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anthony D (2005) Cooperation in microcredit borrowing groups: Identity, sanctions, and reciprocity in the production of collective goods. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 70(3):496–515.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldassarri D, Grossman G (2011) Centralized sanctioning and legitimate authority promote cooperation in humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108(27):11023–11027.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barr A, Serneels P (2009) Reciprocity in the workplace. Experiment. Econom. 12(1):99–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartling B, Fehr E, Schmidt KM (2012) Screening, competition, and job design: Economic origins of good jobs. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(2):834–864.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belenzon S, Schankerman M (2015) Motivation and sorting of human capital in open innovation. Strategic Management J. 36(6):795–820.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benkler Y (2002) Coase’s penguin, or, linux and “the nature of the firm.” Yale Law J. 112(3):369–446.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bereby-Meyer Y, Roth AE (2006) The speed of learning in noisy games: Partial reinforcement and the sustainability of cooperation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(4):1029–1042.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bitektine A, Lucas J, Schilke O (2018) Institutions under a microscope: Experimental methods in institutional theory. Bryman A, Buchanan DA, eds. Unconventional Methodology in Organization and Management Research (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 147–167.Google Scholar
• Blair R (2018). Legitimacy after violence: Evidence from two laboratory-in-the-field experiments in Liberia. Preprint, submitted January 23, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2326671.Google Scholar
• Blau PM (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life (Transaction Publishers).Google Scholar
• Carpenter J, Seki E (2011) Do social preferences increase productivity? Field experimental evidence from fishermen in Toyama Bay. Econom. Inquiry 49(2):612–630.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Villeval M-C (2009) Cooperation and competition in intergenerational experiments in the field and the laboratory. Amer. Econom. Rev. 99(3):956–978.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Yang C-L (2014) Starting small toward voluntary formation of efficient large groups in public goods provision. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 102:119–132.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chassang S (2010) Building routines: Learning, cooperation, and the dynamics of incomplete relational contracts. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(1):448–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chaudhuri A (2011) Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments: A selective survey of the literature. Experiment. Econom. 14(1):47–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cinyabuguma M, Page T, Putterman L (2005) Cooperation under the threat of expulsion in a public goods experiment. J. Public Econom. 89(8):1421–1435.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook KS, Emerson RM (1978) Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 43(5):721–739.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cook KS, Cheshire C, Rice ER, Nakagawa S (2013) Social exchange theory. Handbook of Social Psychology. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. (Springer Dordrecht), 61–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS (2005) Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. J. Management 31(6):874–900.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cropanzano R, Anthony EL, Daniels SR, Hall AV (2017) Social exchange theory: A critical review with theoretical remedies. Acad. Management Ann. 11(1):479–516.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crowston K, Scozzi B (2002) Open source software projects as virtual organisations: Competency rallying for software development. IEE Proc. Software 149(1):3–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crowston K, Annabi H, Howison J, Masango C (2004) Toward a portfolio of floss project success measures. In Workshop on Open Source Software Engineering. 26th Internat. Conf Software Engrg. (IET, Edinburgh), 29–33.Google Scholar
• Crowston K, Wei K, Howison J, Wiggins A (2012) Free/libre open-source software development: What we know and what we do not know. ACM Comput. Surveys 44(2):71–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahlander L, Magnusson MG (2005) Relationships between open source software companies and communities: Observations from Nordic firms. Res. Policy 34(4):481–493.Crossref, Google Scholar
• David PA, Shapiro JS (2008) Community-based production of open-source software: What do we know about the developers who participate? Inform. Econom. Policy 20(4):364–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Denant-Boemont L, Masclet D, Noussair CN (2007) Punishment, counterpunishment and sanction enforcement in a social dilemma experiment. Econom. Theory 33(1):145–167.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dufwenberg M, Kirchsteiger G (2004) A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games Econom. Behav. 47(2):268–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyer JH, Nobeoka K (2000) Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management J. 21(3):345–367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenberger R, Cotterell N, Marvel J (1987) Reciprocation ideology. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 53(4):743–750.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Emerson RM (1976) Social exchange theory. Annual Rev. Sociol. 2(1):335–362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Fischbacher U (2006) A theory of reciprocity. Games Econom. Behav. 54(2):293–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Faraj S, Jarvenpaa SL, Majchrzak A (2011) Knowledge collaboration in online communities. Organ. Sci. 22(5):1224–1239.Link, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Gächter S (2000a) Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(4):980–994.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Gächter S (2000b) Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. J. Econom. Perspect. 14(3):159–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Leibbrandt A (2011) A field study on cooperativeness and impatience in the tragedy of the commons. J. Public Econom. 95(9–10):1144–1155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Felin T, Foss NJ (2005) Strategic organization: A field in search of micro-foundations. Strategic Organ. 3(4):441–455.Google Scholar
• Felin T, Foss NJ, Ployhart RE (2015) The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Acad. Management Ann. 9(1):575–632.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Finan F, Schechter L (2012) Vote-buying and reciprocity. Econometrica 80(2):863–881.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U, Gächter S (2010) Social preferences, beliefs, and the dynamics of free riding in public goods experiments. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(1):541–556.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U, Gächter S, Fehr E (2001) Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment. Econom. Lett. 71(3):397–404.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fudenberg D, Rand DG, Dreber A (2012) Slow to anger and fast to forgive: Cooperation in an uncertain world. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(2):720–749.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Renner E, Sefton M (2008) The long-run benefits of punishment. Sci. 322(5907):1510–1510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghosh RA (2007) Economic impact of open source software on innovation and the competitiveness of the information and communication technologies (ICT) sector in the EU.Google Scholar
• Gibbons R, Henderson R (2012) Relational contracts and organizational capabilities. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1350–1364.Link, Google Scholar
• Gibbons RS, Grieder M, Herz H, Zehnder C (2020) Building an equilibrium: Rules vs. principles in relational contracts. CESifo Working Paper No. 7871, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
• Gilligan MJ, Pasquale BJ, Samii C (2014) Civil war and social cohesion: Laboratory-in-the-field evidence from Nepal. Amer. J. Political Sci. 58(3):604–619.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gittell JH (2000) Organizing work to support relational co-ordination. Internat. J. Human Resource Management 11(3):517–539.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gittell JH, Seidner R, Wimbush J (2010) A relational model of how high-performance work systems work. Organ. Sci. 21(2):490–506.Link, Google Scholar
• Gittell JH, von Nordenflycht A, Kochan TA (2004) Mutual gains or zero sum? Labor relations and firm performance in the airline industry. Indust. Labor Relations Rev. 57(2):163–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Imas A (2017) Laboratory in the field: Measuring preferences in the wild. Banerjee AV, Duflo E, eds. Handbook of Economic Field Experiments, vol. 1 (Elsevier), 439–464.Google Scholar
• Gouldner AW (1960) The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 25(2):161–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grechenig K, Nicklisch A, Thöni C (2010) Punishment despite reasonable doubt—A public goods experiment with sanctions under uncertainty. J. Empirical Legal Stud. 7(4):847–867.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greenstein S, Nagle F (2014) Digital dark matter and the economic contribution of Apache. Res. Policy 43(4):623–631.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grewal R, Lilien GL, Mallapragada G (2006) Location, location, location: How network embeddedness affects project success in open source systems. Management Sci. 52(7):1043–1056.Link, Google Scholar
• Grossman G, Baldassarri D (2012) The impact of elections on cooperation: Evidence from a lab-in-the-field experiment in Uganda. Amer. J. Political Sci. 56(4):964–985.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Helper S, Henderson R (2014) Management practices, relational contracts, and the decline of General Motors. J. Econom. Perspect. 28(1):49–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hergueux J, Jacquemet N (2015) Social preferences in the online laboratory: A randomized experiment. Experiment. Econom. 18(2):251–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herrmann B, Thöni C, Gächter S (2008) Antisocial punishment across societies. Science 319(5868):1362–1367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hertel G, Niedner S, Herrmann S (2003) Motivation of software developers in open source projects: An internet-based survey of contributors to the Linux kernel. Res. Policy 32(7):1159–1177.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Homans GC (1961) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms (Harcourt, Brace, San Diego).Google Scholar
• Ichniowski C, Shaw K, Prennushi G (1997) The effects of human resource management practices on productivity: A study of steel finishing lines. Amer. Econom. Rev. 87(3):291–313.Google Scholar
• Karlan DS (2005) Using experimental economics to measure social capital and predict financial decisions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(5):1688–1699.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kellogg KC (2009) Operating room: Relational spaces and microinstitutional change in surgery. Amer. J. Sociol. 115(3):657–711.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kosfeld M, Rustagi D (2015) Leader punishment and cooperation in groups: Experimental field evidence from commons management in Ethiopia. Amer. Econom. Rev. 105(2):747–783.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kosfeld M, von Siemens FA (2011) Competition, cooperation, and corporate culture. RAND J. Econom. 42(1):23–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kreps DM, Alt JE, Shepsle KA (1996) Corporate culture and economic theory. Firms, Organizations and Contracts (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 221–275.Google Scholar
• Kunreuther H, Silvasi G, Bradlow E, Small D (2009) Bayesian analysis of deterministic and stochastic prisoner’s dilemma games. Judgment Decision Making 4(5):363–384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lakhani KR, Wolf RG (2005) Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. Feller J, Fitzgerald B, Hissam S, Lakhani KR, eds. Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), 3–22.Google Scholar
• Lazer D, Pentland A, Adamic L, Aral S, Barabasi A-L, Brewer D, Christakis N, et al. (2009) Computational social science. Sci. 323(5915):721–723.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ledyard JO (1995) Public goods: A survey of experimental research. Kagel JH, Roth AE, eds. The Handbook of Experimental Economics (Princeton University Press, Princeton), 111–194.Google Scholar
• Lee GK, Cole RE (2003) From a firm-based to a community-based model of knowledge creation: The case of the Linux kernel development. Organ. Sci. 14(6):633–649.Link, Google Scholar
• Leibbrandt A (2012) Are social preferences related to market performance? Experiment. Econom. 15(4):589–603.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levine SS, Prietula MJ (2013) Open collaboration for innovation: Principles and performance. Organ. Sci. 25(5):1414–1433.Link, Google Scholar
• Marlow J, Dabbish L, Herbsleb J (2013) Impression formation in online peer production: activity traces and personal profiles in Github. Proc. 2013 Conf. Comput. Supported Cooperative Work (ACM, New York), 117–128.Google Scholar
• Maurer SM, Scotchmer S (2006) Open source software: The new intellectual property paradigm. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Mayer KJ, Argyres NS (2004) Learning to contract: Evidence from the personal computer industry. Organ. Sci. 15(4):394–410.Link, Google Scholar
• Molm LD (2003) Theoretical comparisons of forms of exchange. Sociol. Theory 21(1):1–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Molm LD, Takahashi N, Peterson G (2000) Risk and trust in social exchange: An experimental test of a classical proposition. Amer. J. Sociol. 105(5):1396–1427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Montgomery JD (1996) The structure of social exchange networks: A game-theoretic reformulation of Blau’s model. Sociol. Methodology 26:193–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nikiforakis N (2008) Punishment and counter-punishment in public good games: Can we really govern ourselves? J. Public Econom. 92(1–2):91–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nikiforakis N, Noussair CN, Wilkening T (2012) Normative conflict and feuds: The limits of self-enforcement. J. Public Econom. 96(9–10):797–807.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Mahony S (2003) Guarding the commons: How community managed software projects protect their work. Res. Policy 32(7):1179–1198.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Page T, Putterman L, Unel B (2005) Voluntary association in public goods experiments: Reciprocity, mimicry and efficiency. Econom. J. (London) 115(506):1032–1053.Google Scholar
• Roth AE (1995) Introduction to experimental economics. Kagel JH, Roth AE, eds. The Handbook of Experimental Economics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ), 3–109.Google Scholar
• Rustagi D, Engel S, Kosfeld M (2010) Conditional cooperation and costly monitoring explain success in forest commons management. Science 330(6006):961–965.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scacchi W (2007) Free/open source software development: Recent research results and emerging opportunities. Sixth Joint Meeting Eur. Software Engrg. Conf. ACM SIGSOFT Sympos. Foundations Software Engrg. Companion Papers (ACM, New York), 459–468.Google Scholar
• Schram A (2005) Artificiality: The tension between internal and external validity in economic experiments. J. Econom. Methodology 12(2):225–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sobel J (2005) Interdependent preferences and reciprocity. J. Econom. Literature 43(2):392–436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Antwerp M, Madey G (2008) Advances in the Sourceforge research data archive (SRDA). Fourth Internat. Conf. Open Source Systems.Google Scholar
• Van Antwerp M, Madey G (2010) The importance of social network structure in the open source software developer community. 43rd Hawaii Internat. Conf. System Sci. (IEEE), 1–10.Google Scholar
• von Hippel E, von Krogh G (2003) Open source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organ. Sci. 14(2):209–223.Link, Google Scholar
• von Krogh G, von Hippel E (2006) The promise of research on open source software. Management Sci. 52(7):975–983.Link, Google Scholar
• Walli S, Gynn D, von Rotz B (2005) The growth of open source software in organizations. Technical report, Optaros Consulting, Boston.Google Scholar
• Weber S (2004) The Success of Open Source (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xiao E, Kunreuther H (2016) Punishment and cooperation in stochastic social dilemmas. J. Conflict Resolution 60(4):670–693.Crossref, Google Scholar