Social Cognition
Collective Risk Game
Also called: collective-risk social dilemma, threshold contribution game
Measure cooperation toward a shared target. Participants contribute points alongside five simulated members; falling short can cost everyone their remaining points. Scores report contributions, target success and final points.
3-5 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Try it here first, with no account.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 62
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measure contributions toward a shared target when falling short puts everyone's remaining points at risk. The participant plays ten rounds with five simulated members. The main score is the share of starting points contributed.
Constructs
- Cooperation toward a shared target
- Contribution under collective risk
- Adjustment to group progress
Research uses
- Behavioral economics research
- Collective-action research
- Group comparisons within a study
How the paradigm works
The Collective Risk Game measures contributions toward a shared target when falling short can cost everyone their remaining points. The participant and five simulated members each start with 40 points and contribute 0, 2 or 4 in each of ten rounds. If their combined contributions reach 120, they keep what they have left. Otherwise, one shared draw removes everyone’s remaining points with a stated chance of 90% (standard; 10%, 50% or 90%). Points have no monetary value.
More about the paradigm
This follows the collective-risk social dilemma of Milinski and colleagues (2008). Their paid experiment used six people, ten rounds, the same contribution amounts and target, and a climate-change framing. Our neutral points version uses simulated members and displays the cumulative total. Each program independently contributes 0, 2 or 4 with probabilities 0.2, 0.6 and 0.2. All member choices and the final draw are fixed by the session seed before play. Feedback shows each member’s contribution in a fixed order, the cumulative group total and the participant’s remaining points. Instructions and the final screen disclose the simulation.
Scores
- Contribution Ratescore
- Total points contributed divided by the initial 40 points.
- Read across a group; no better direction
- Total Contributedpoints
- Points contributed across the ten rounds.
- Informational
- First Contributionpoints
- Points contributed before any feedback.
- Informational
- Last Contributionpoints
- Points contributed in the final round.
- Informational
- Change in Contributionspoints
- Last-five-round mean minus first-five-round mean in a completed game.
- Positive values mean larger later contributions
- Group Totalpoints
- Cumulative contributions of all six members.
- Compare with the target of 120
- Target Reachedflag
- 1 when the group reaches 120; 0 otherwise.
- A group outcome under the programmed rule
- Points Kept Before Outcomepoints
- 40 minus the participant’s contributions.
- Informational
- Final Pointspoints
- Points kept after resolving the shared loss event.
- An outcome of choices and the shared draw
- Points Lostflag
- 1 when missing the target triggers loss of retained points.
- Informational
- Check Correctflag
- 1 for a correct check answer; 0 otherwise.
- 1 supports interpretation
- Median Choice Timems
- Median choice time excluding choices under 100 ms.
- Informational
- Choices Under 100 mscount
- Number of choices under 100 ms.
- 0 expected
- Roundscount
- Number of rounds played.
- 10 in a completed game
Use and evidence
62 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 170% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 332 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 13 |
| 2024 | 13 |
| 2023 | 20 |
| 2022 | 10 |
| 2021 | 6 |
| 2020 | 7 |
| 2019 | 6 |
| 2018 | 5 |
| 2017 | 3 |
| 2016 | 2 |
| 2015 | 3 |
| 2014 | 4 |
| 2013 | 2 |
| 2012 | 4 |
| 2011 | 4 |
| 2010 | 0 |
| 2009 | 1 |
| 2008 | 2 |
| 2007 | 0 |
| 2006 | 0 |
| 2005 | 0 |
| 2004 | 0 |
| 2003 | 0 |
| 2002 | 0 |
| 2001 | 0 |
| 2000 | 0 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 2
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
Measured on ConductCognition
Pooled across the studies that feed our platform norms, by device group. A figure needs 50 or more people.
No pooled figure yet.
Note on the counts: Original numeric points adaptation with simulated members; no published items or norms..
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Group and points
- One participant and five simulated members, each with 40 points. Points only, with no monetary payment.
- Rounds
- 10 rounds. Each member contributes 0, 2 or 4 points per round. Contributions stay in the group total and cannot be taken back.
- Target and loss
- The group needs 120 points after round 10. Reaching the target preserves remaining private points. Missing it triggers one shared loss event with a stated chance of 90% (standard; 10%, 50% or 90%); if it occurs, everyone loses all remaining points.
- Members
- Each program independently contributes 0, 2 or 4 with probabilities 0.2, 0.6 and 0.2. Member contributions and the shared loss draw are fixed by the seed before play. Programs do not respond to the participant.
- Feedback
- After each round, a separate screen shows all five member contributions in a fixed order, the cumulative group total and the participant’s remaining points.
- Practice
- One question with feedback: after contributing 20 points, how many remain if the group reaches 120? The answer is 20.
- Scores
- Contribution rate (total divided by 40), total contributed, first and last contributions, last-five minus first-five mean, group total, target success, retained points and final points.
- Disclosure
- Instructions and the end screen state that the group members are programs.
An original points adaptation of Milinski and colleagues’ collective-risk social dilemma. Simulated members, neutral framing and a visible cumulative total differ from the paid group experiment. Scores describe behavior under the selected rule and do not diagnose. No percentile output.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Choices have no right answer and repeated choices are accepted. Incomplete games and a wrong practice answer are flagged for review. Choices under 200 ms on at least half the rounds invalidate.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Repeated choices are legitimate resource strategies. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Loss chance (%) | 90% (standard) | 10%, 50%, 90% (standard) |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Collective Risk Game in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Milinski M et al., 2008), with the standard settings (loss chance (%): 90%). The main score was contribution rate (total points contributed divided by the initial 40 points).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Milinski, M., Sommerfeld, R. D., Krambeck, H.-J., Reed, F. A., & Marotzke, J. (2008). The collective-risk social dilemma and the prevention of simulated dangerous climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(7), 2291-2294. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0709546105Six members, ten rounds, 0/2/4 contributions, a 120-point target and shared loss probabilities.
Source papers
- Milinski and colleagues (2008), collective-risk social dilemma. This adaptation uses simulated members and points only.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Collective Risk Game take?
About 3 to 5 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Contribution Rate, Total Contributed, First Contribution, Last Contribution, Change in Contributions, Group Total, Target Reached, Points Kept Before Outcome, Final Points, Points Lost, Check Correct, Median Choice Time, Choices Under 100 ms and Rounds. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Collective Risk Game used in research?
62 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 170% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 332 of 582 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.39.0, counted 8 November 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Collective Risk Game have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Loss chance (%) (10%, 50%, 90% (standard)). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.
Related tests