Modeling the micro-macro link: Understanding macro-level outcomes using randomization tests on micro-level data.

Analytical sociology explains macro-level outcomes by referring to micro-level behaviors, and its hypotheses thus take macro-level entities (e.g. groups) as their units of analysis. The statistical analysis of these macro-level units is problematic, since macro units are often few in number, leading to low statistical power. Additionally, micro-level processes take place within macro units, but tests on macro-level units cannot adequately deal with these processes. Consequently, much analytical sociology focuses on testing micro-level predictions. We propose a better alternative; a method to test macro hypotheses on micro data, using randomization tests. The advantages of our method are (i) increased statistical power, (ii) possibilities to control for micro covariates, and (iii) the possibility to test macro hypotheses without macro units. We provide a heuristic description of our method and illustrate it with data from a published study. Data and R-scripts for this paper are available in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/scfx3/).

Relative power: Material and contextual elements of efficacy in social dilemmas.

In Step-Level Public Good (SPG) situations, groups of individuals can produce a public good if a sufficient number of them contribute. In SPG situations it is thus only rational for any group member to contribute if according to the beliefs of that group member her contribution is essential to the production of the public good. An individual's estimate of the impact of their contribution on the likelihood of public good production is known as their efficacy. The classic efficacy - cooperation hypothesis holds that individuals will be more likely to contribute if they estimate their contributions to be more necessary. Based on a game theoretical analysis of the SPG game, we contribute to the literature by identifying two distinct components of efficacy, viz. material efficacy and contextual efficacy. The former is based on objective characteristics of group members (such as resources, power, or skill) and the latter on beliefs about the material efficacy of other group members and expectations concerning their behavior. We present evidence from three experimental studies, showing how information on the distribution of material efficacy in the group can break the monotone material efficacy - cooperation relation. In addition, contrary to what one would expect based on both the efficacy - cooperation hypothesis and game theory, our results show that the effects of material efficacy are not mediated by contextual efficacy, both forms of efficacy having significant effects on behavior.