AbstractWe provide experimental evidence of self-serving fairness ideals in a dictator game design that includes treatments where funds can be transferred in two ways to the one player and in one way to the other. Two methods for transferring funds to the recipient produce the same results as the regular dictator game. However, two methods for transferring funds to the dictator reduce her generosity significantly. Hence, the fairness ideal adopted by dictators appears to be equal share per individual in the former case (as in the regular dictator game), and equal share per transfer method in the latter case.
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 Oslo University, Department of Economics in its series Memorandum with number 26/2008.
Length: 19 pages
Date of creation: 14 Oct 2008
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Department of Economics, University of Oslo, P.O Box 1095 Blindern, N-0317 Oslo, Norway
Phone: 22 85 51 27
Fax: 22 85 50 35
Web page: http://www.oekonomi.uio.no/indexe.html
More information through EDIRC
Self-serving Bias; Experimental Economics; Dictator Game;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
- D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2009-02-14 (All new papers)
- NEP-CBE-2009-02-14 (Cognitive & Behavioural Economics)
- NEP-EXP-2009-02-14 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-HPE-2009-02-14 (History & Philosophy of Economics)
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.:
- Gaechter,S. & Riedl,A., 2002.
"Moral property rights in bargaining,"
330, Bielefeld University, Center for Mathematical Economics.
- Todd R. Kaplan & Bradley J. Ruffle, 2004. "The Self-serving Bias and Beliefs about Rationality," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 42(2), pages 237-246, April.
- Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2005.
"Moral Property Rights in Bargaining with Infeasible Claims,"
INFORMS, vol. 51(2), pages 249-263, February.
- Simon G�chter & Arno Riedl, 2003. "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining with Infeasible Claims," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-055/1, Tinbergen Institute.
- Alexander W. Cappelen & Astri Drange Hole & Erik Ø Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2007.
"The Pluralism of Fairness Ideals: An Experimental Approach,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 818-827, June.
- Alexander W. Cappelen & Astri D. Hole & Erik Ø. Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2005. "The Pluralism of Fairness Ideals: An Experimental Approach," CESifo Working Paper Series 1611, CESifo Group Munich.
- Linda Babcock & George Loewenstein, 1997. "Explaining Bargaining Impasse: The Role of Self-Serving Biases," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 109-126, Winter.
- Gary E. Bolton & Rami Zwick & Elena Katok, 1998. "Dictator game giving: Rules of fairness versus acts of kindness," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 269-299.
- Forsythe Robert & Horowitz Joel L. & Savin N. E. & Sefton Martin, 1994. "Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 347-369, May.
- James Konow, 2000. "Fair Shares: Accountability and Cognitive Dissonance in Allocation Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1072-1091, September.
- Hoffman Elizabeth & McCabe Kevin & Shachat Keith & Smith Vernon, 1994. "Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 346-380, November.
- Heike Hennig-Schmidt, 2000. "The Impact of Fairness on Decision Making - An Analysis of Different Video Experiments," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers bgse14_2001, University of Bonn, Germany, revised Feb 2002.
- Michael R. Ransom & Gordon B. Dahl, 1999. "Does Where You Stand Depend on Where You Sit? Tithing Donations and Self-Serving Beliefs," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 703-727, September.
- Tausch Franziska & Potters Jan & Riedl Arno, 2011.
"Preferences for Redistribution and Pensions: What Can We Learn from Experiments?,"
014, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
- Tausch, Franziska & Potters, Jan & Riedl, Arno, 2013. "Preferences for redistribution and pensions. What can we learn from experiments?," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(03), pages 298-325, July.
- Tausch Franziska & Potters Jan & Riedl Arno, 2010. "Preferences for Redistribution and Pensions: What Can We Learn from Experiments?," Research Memorandum 043, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
- Franziska Tausch & Jan Potters & Arno Riedl, 2010. "Preferences for Redistribution and Pensions. What can we Learn from Experiments?," CESifo Working Paper Series 3156, CESifo Group Munich.
- Tausch, Franziska & Potters, Jan & Riedl, Arno, 2010. "Preferences for Redistribution and Pensions: What Can We Learn from Experiments?," IZA Discussion Papers 5090, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Rhiana Bergh-Seeley).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.