(Over-)Stylizing Experimental Findings and Theorizing with Sweeping Generality
AbstractHuman decision making is a process guided by different and partly competing motivations that can each dominate behavior and lead to different effects depending on strength and circumstances. 'Over-stylizing' neglects such competing concerns and context-dependence, although it facilitates the emergence of elaborate general theories. We illustrate by examples from social dilemma experiments and inequality aversion theories that sweeping empirical claims should be avoided.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Frankfurt School Verlag, Frankfurt School of Finance & Management in its journal Rationality, Markets and Morals.
Volume (Year): 0 (2009)
Issue (Month): 16 (November)
decision theory; social dilemmas; inequality aversion; behavioral economics; experimental economics;
Other versions of this item:
- Werner Güth & Hartmut Kliemt & M. Vittoria Levatia, 2008. "(Over-)Stylizing experimental findings and theorizing with sweeping generality," Jena Economic Research Papers 2008-092, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics.
- A11 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Role of Economics; Role of Economists
- D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
- D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Werner Güth & Hartmut Kliemt & M. Vittoria Levati & Georg von Wangenheim, 2007.
"On the Coevolution of Retribution and Trustworthiness: An (Indirect) Evolutionary and Experimental Analysis,"
Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE),
Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(1), pages 143-157, March.
- Werner Güth & Hartmut Kliemt & M. Vittoria Levati & Geog von Wangenheim, 2006. "On the Co-evolution of Retribution and Trustworthiness: An (Indirect) Evolutionary and Experimental Analysis," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-18, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
- Guth, Werner & Huck, Steffen & Ockenfels, Peter, 1996. "Two-Level Ultimatum Bargaining with Incomplete Information: An Experimental Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(436), pages 593-604, May.
- Guth, Werner & Huck, Steffen & Muller, Wieland, 2001. "The Relevance of Equal Splits in Ultimatum Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 161-169, October.
- Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Krupnick, Alan & Lampi, Elina & Löfgren, Åsa & Qin, Ping & Sterner, Thomas & Chung, Susie, 2010.
"A Fair Share : Burden-Sharing Preferences in the United States and China,"
Working Papers in Economics
471, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
- Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Krupnick, Alan & Lampi, Elina & Löfgren, Åsa & Qin, Ping & Sterner, Thomas, 2013. "A fair share: Burden-sharing preferences in the United States and China," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-17.
- Frederik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Alan Krupnick & Elina Lampi & Åsa Löfgren & Ping Qin & Thomas Sterner & S. Chung, 2010. "A Fair Share - Burden-Sharing Preferences in the United States and China," Jena Economic Research Papers 2010-074, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Friederike Pförtner).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.