Effciency Concern under Asymmetric Information
AbstractExperimental evidence from simple distribution games supports the view that some individuals have a concern for the effciency of allocations. This motive could be important for the implementation of economic policy proposals. In a typical lab experiment, however, individuals have much more information available than outside the lab. We conduct a lab experiment to test whether asymmetric information influences prosocial behavior in a simple non-strategic interaction. In our setting, a dictator has only limited knowledge about the benefits his prosocial action generates for a recipient. We find that a substantial share of subjects behaves proscially and a concern for effciency plays an important role. In our experiment the information asymmetry is actually effciency-enhancing as more subjects behave prosocially than under symmetric information.
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 University of Mannheim, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 13-07.
Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
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.:
- Charness, Gary & Rabin, Matthew, 2001.
"Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests,"
Department of Economics, Working Paper Series
qt4qz9k8vg, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences With Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869, August.
- Charness, Gary B & Rabin, Matthew, 2001. "Understanding Social Preferences With Simple Tests," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt0dc3k4m5, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
- Charness, Gary & Rabin, Matthew, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt3d04q5sm, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2003. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," General Economics and Teaching 0303002, EconWPA.
- Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Matteo Ploner, 2008.
"On The Social Dimension Of Time And Risk Preferences: An Experimental Study,"
Western Economic Association International, vol. 46(2), pages 261-272, 04.
- M. Vittoria Levati & Werner Güth & Matteo Ploner, 2005. "On the social dimension of time and risk preferences: An experimental study," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2005-26, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
- Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 1996. "Altruism in Anonymous Dictator Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 181-191, October.
- Michael Kosfeld & Armin Falk, 2006.
"The Hidden Costs of Control,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1611-1630, December.
- Ingrid Rohde & Kirsten Rohde, 2011. "Risk attitudes in a social context," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 205-225, December.
- Jason Dana & Roberto Weber & Jason Kuang, 2007. "Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 67-80, October.
- Brennan, Geoffrey & González, Luis G. & Güth, Werner & Levati, M. Vittoria, 2008.
"Attitudes toward private and collective risk in individual and strategic choice situations,"
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 253-262, July.
- Geoffrey Brennan & Werner Güth & Luis G. Gonzalez & M. Vittoria Levati, 2005. "Attitudes toward Private and Collective Risks in Individual and Strategic Choice Situations," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2005-22, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
- Uri Gneezy & Aldo Rustichini, 2000.
"A fine is a price,"
Natural Field Experiments
00258, The Field Experiments Website.
- Haisley, Emily C. & Weber, Roberto A., 2010. "Self-serving interpretations of ambiguity in other-regarding behavior," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 614-625, March.
- Ernst Fehr & Bettina Rockenbach, 2003. "Detrimental effects of sanctions on human altruism," Microeconomics 0305007, EconWPA.
- Fredric Jacobsson & Magnus Johannesson & Lars Borgquist, 2007. "Is Altruism Paternalistic?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(520), pages 761-781, 04.
- Friedel Bolle & Philipp E. Otto, 2010. "A Price Is a Signal: on Intrinsic Motivation, Crowding-out, and Crowding-in," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(1), pages 9-22, 02.
- Kritikos, Alexander & Bolle, Friedel, 2001. "Distributional concerns: equity- or efficiency-oriented?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 73(3), pages 333-338, December.
- Frey, Bruno S & Oberholzer-Gee, Felix, 1997. "The Cost of Price Incentives: An Empirical Analysis of Motivation Crowding-Out," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(4), pages 746-55, September.
- Christoph Engel, 2010.
"Dictator Games: A Meta Study,"
Working Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods
2010_07, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, revised Jan 2011.
- 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.
- Samuel Bowles & Sandra Polania-Reyes, 2012. "Economic Incentives and Social Preferences: Substitutes or Complements?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 50(2), pages 368-425, June.
- Charlotte Klempt & Kerstin Pull, 2009. "Generosity, Greed and Gambling: What difference does asymmetric information in bargaining make?," Jena Economic Research Papers 2009-021, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics.
- Christiane Bradler, 2009. "Social Preferences under Risk - An Experimental Analysis," Jena Economic Research Papers 2009-022, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics.
- Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
- Mitzkewitz, Michael & Nagel, Rosemarie, 1993. "Experimental Results on Ultimatum Games with Incomplete Information," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 171-98.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Katharina Rautenberg).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.