The generosity effect: Fairness in sharing gains and losses
AbstractWe explore the interaction between fairness attitudes and reference dependence both theoretically and experimentally. Our theory of fairness behavior under reference-dependent preferences in the context of ultimatum games, defines fairness in the utility domain and not in the domain of dollar payments. We test our model predictions using a within-subject design with ultimatum and dictator games involving gains and losses of varying amounts. Proposers indicated their offer in gain- and (neatly comparable) loss- games; responders indicated minimum acceptable gain and maximum acceptable loss. We find a significant “generosity effect” in the loss domain: on average, proposers bear the largest share of losses as if anticipating responders’ call for a smaller share. In contrast, reference dependence hardly affects the outcome of dictator games -where responders have no veto right- though we detect a small but significant “compassion effect”, whereby dictators are on average somewhat more generous sharing losses than sharing gains.
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 InfoPaper provided by ESMT European School of Management and Technology in its series ESMT Research Working Papers with number ESMT-13-08.
Length: 47 pages
Date of creation: 29 Aug 2013
Date of revision:
Fairness; loss domain; ultimatum game; dictator game; referencedependent preferences; social preferences;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics; Underlying Principles
- D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2013-09-26 (All new papers)
- NEP-CBE-2013-09-26 (Cognitive & Behavioural Economics)
- NEP-EVO-2013-09-26 (Evolutionary Economics)
- NEP-EXP-2013-09-26 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-GTH-2013-09-26 (Game Theory)
- NEP-HPE-2013-09-26 (History & Philosophy of Economics)
- NEP-UPT-2013-09-26 (Utility Models & Prospect Theory)
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.:
- Guth, Werner & Tietz, Reinhard, 1990. "Ultimatum bargaining behavior : A survey and comparison of experimental results," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 417-449, September.
- Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
- Steffen Andersen & Seda Ertac & Uri Gneezy & Moshe Hoffman & John A. List, 2011.
"Stakes Matter in Ultimatum Games,"
American Economic Review, American Economic Association,
American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 3427-39, December.
- Steffen Andersen & Uri Gneezy & Moshe Hoffman & Seda Ertac & John List, 2011. "Stakes matter in ultimatum games," Framed Field Experiments, The Field Experiments Website 00118, The Field Experiments Website.
- Andersen, Steffen & Ertaç, Seda & Gneezy, Uri & Hoffman , Moshe & List, John A., 2011. "Stakes Matter in Ultimatum Games," Working Papers, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics 01-2011, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
- Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, MIT Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-61, November.
- Brit Grosskopf, 2003. "Reinforcement and Directional Learning in the Ultimatum Game with Responder Competition," Experimental Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 141-158, October.
- Hessel Oosterbeek & Randolph Sloof & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2004.
"Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis,"
- Hessel Oosterbeek & Randolph Sloof & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2004. "Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 171-188, 06.
- John Kagel & Katherine Wolfe, 2001. "Tests of Fairness Models Based on Equity Considerations in a Three-Person Ultimatum Game," Experimental Economics, Springer, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 203-219, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (ESMT Faculty Publications).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.