Social Cognition
Shared Pool Game
Also called: common-pool resource game, resource dilemma, renewable resource game
Measure restraint over a shared resource: participants take points from a pool that regrows between rounds, alongside three simulated members. Scores report requests, points taken and whether the pool survives.
4-7 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
- 83
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measure restraint and cooperation over a shared resource. Participants take points from a pool that regrows between rounds, alongside three simulated members. Scores report requested amounts and the pool's survival.
Constructs
- Resource restraint
- Cooperation over repeated rounds
- Intertemporal resource decisions
Research uses
- Behavioral economics research on shared resources
- Environmental psychology research
- Group comparisons within a study
How the paradigm works
The Shared Pool Game measures restraint and cooperation when taking points now leaves fewer available later. The participant and three simulated members request points from one stock. What remains regrows before the next round. This follows the dynamic common-pool resource approach of Kimbrough and Vostroknutov (2015), whose Appendix F.4 also examines growth proportional to the remaining stock.
More about the paradigm
Our version starts with 100 points, allows requests from 0 to 20, and runs for up to 20 rounds (5 to 40). After each round, the remaining stock grows by 50% (25%, 50% or 100%), rounded down and capped at 100. An empty pool ends the game. Each simulated member independently requests 6, 8 or 10 with equal chances, fixed by the session seed before play. If requests exceed the stock, points are allocated in proportion to requests and rounded with largest remainders; a saved random order resolves ties. The screen shows the pool, the request and the round outcome. The last screen states that the members were programs. Points have no monetary value.
Scores
- Mean Requestedpoints
- Mean points requested per played round.
- Read across a group; no better direction
- First Requestpoints
- Points requested before any feedback.
- Informational
- Last Requestpoints
- Points requested in the last played round.
- Informational
- Change in Requestspoints
- Second-half mean minus first-half mean across played rounds.
- Positive values mean larger later requests
- Points Takenpoints
- Total points actually received, after any rationing.
- Informational
- Final Poolpoints
- Pool remaining after growth in the last played round.
- Informational
- Pool Depletedflag
- 1 when the pool reached zero; 0 otherwise.
- A group outcome under the programmed rule
- Check Correctflag
- 1 for a correct check answer; 0 otherwise.
- 1 supports interpretation
- Median Choice Timems
- Median response time, excluding choices under 100 ms.
- Informational
- Choices Under 100 mscount
- Number of choices under 100 ms.
- 0 expected
- Roundscount
- Number of rounds played.
- Informational
Use and evidence
83 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 22% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 272 of 582 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 18 |
| 2024 | 18 |
| 2023 | 13 |
| 2022 | 13 |
| 2021 | 21 |
| 2020 | 25 |
| 2019 | 26 |
| 2018 | 28 |
| 2017 | 16 |
| 2016 | 12 |
| 2015 | 19 |
| 2014 | 15 |
| 2013 | 28 |
| 2012 | 21 |
| 2011 | 18 |
| 2010 | 14 |
| 2009 | 9 |
| 2008 | 16 |
| 2007 | 19 |
| 2006 | 9 |
| 2005 | 4 |
| 2004 | 7 |
| 2003 | 8 |
| 2002 | 8 |
| 2001 | 4 |
| 2000 | 9 |
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
- 18
- 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 resource game 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.
- Pool
- 100 points at the start and a capacity of 100. After each round, remaining points grow by 50% (standard; 25%, 50% or 100%), rounded down.
- Each round
- The participant and three simulated members simultaneously request whole amounts from 0 to 20, or up to the remaining stock if smaller. Requests above the stock are rationed proportionally, with largest remainders and a seeded tie order.
- Members
- Each program independently requests 6, 8 or 10, each with equal chance, capped at the current pool. Choices are drawn before play and do not respond to the participant.
- Rounds
- 20 (standard; 5 to 40). An empty pool ends the game. A separate feedback screen shows the group request, points taken, remaining stock and regrowth after each round.
- Practice
- One question with feedback: the next stock when 40 points remain and the selected growth rate applies.
- Points
- Points only, with no monetary payment. Instructions and the end screen disclose the simulated group.
- Scores
- Mean points requested, first and last requests, second-half minus first-half requests, actual points taken, final pool and depletion.
This is an original adaptation of a dynamic common-pool resource game, with simulated members and a bounded stock. Requests depend on how long the pool survives; read them with the rounds played and final stock. Scores describe this game 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Rounds | 20 | 5 to 40 |
| Pool growth (%) | 50% (standard) | 25%, 50% (standard), 100% |
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 Shared Pool Game in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Kimbrough EO, Vostroknutov A, 2015), with the standard settings (rounds: 20; pool growth (%): 50%). The main score was mean requested (mean points requested per played round).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Kimbrough, E. O., & Vostroknutov, A. (2015). The social and ecological determinants of common pool resource sustainability. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 72, 38-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2015.04.004Dynamic resource stocks; Appendix F.4 tests growth proportional to what remains.
Source papers
- Kimbrough and Vostroknutov (2015), dynamic common-pool resource experiment. This implementation uses original parameters and simulated members.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Shared Pool Game take?
About 4 to 7 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?
Mean Requested, First Request, Last Request, Change in Requests, Points Taken, Final Pool, Pool Depleted, 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 Shared Pool Game used in research?
83 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 22% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 272 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 Shared Pool 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?
Rounds (5 to 40) and pool growth (%) (25%, 50% (standard), 100%). 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