Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Integrity, Shame and Self-Rationalization

Contents:

Author Info

Abstract

In orthodox economics, honesty or integrity is treated as either part of the constraint function or the objective function. This is at the origin of the statement, “every man has his price.” However, if integrity has a price, why do agents experience shame when they sell it while they do not when they sell other possessions? If agents are rational, why do they resort to self-rationalization to avoid shame? The proposed view, called “quantum,” avoids these anomalies. Further, the quantum view avoids another set of anomalies that face heterodox models based on the multiple-self framework. The quantum view sheds light on heroism, self-identity, self-cheating (procrastination), etiquettes, taboos, and identity switch.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://irving.vassar.edu/VCEWP/VCEWP55.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Vassar College Department of Economics in its series Vassar College Department of Economics Working Paper Series with number 55.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Feb 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:vas:papers:55

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Maildrop 708, 124 Raymond Avenue, Poughkeepsie NY 12604-0708
Phone: (914)437-7395
Fax: (914)437-7576
Web page: http://irving.vassar.edu/VCEWP/VCEWP.htm
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. David K. Levine, 1998. "Modeling Altruism and Spitefulness in Experiment," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 1(3), pages 593-622, July.
  2. Hirschman, Albert O., 1985. "Against Parsimony: Three Easy Ways of Complicating some Categories of Economic Discourse," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(01), pages 7-21, April.
  3. Herbert Gintis, 2000. "Strong Reciprocity and Human Sociality," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2000-02, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
  4. Akerlof, George A & Dickens, William T, 1982. "The Economic Consequences of Cognitive Dissonance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 307-19, June.
  5. Andereoni, J., 1988. "Why Free Ride? Strategies And Learning In Public Goods Experiments," Working papers 375, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.
  6. Dowell, Richard S & McLaren, Keith R, 1986. "An Intertemporal Analysis of the Interdependence between Risk Preference, Retirement, and Work Rate Decisions," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(3), pages 667-82, June.
  7. Tullock, Gordon, 1985. "Adam Smith and the Prisoners' Dilemma," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 100(5), pages 1073-81, Supp..
  8. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
  9. Anand, Paul, 1995. "Foundations of Rational Choice Under Risk," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198774426.
  10. George A. Akerlof & Rachel E. Kranton, 2000. "Economics And Identity," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 115(3), pages 715-753, August.
  11. Bolton, Gary E, 1991. "A Comparative Model of Bargaining: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1096-136, December.
  12. Stigler, George J & Becker, Gary S, 1977. "De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(2), pages 76-90, March.
  13. Dowell, Richard S & Goldfarb, Robert S & Griffith, William B, 1998. "Economic Man as a Moral Individual," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 36(4), pages 645-53, October.
  14. Roth, Alvin E. & Vesna Prasnikar & Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara & Shmuel Zamir, 1991. "Bargaining and Market Behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1068-95, December.
  15. Azar, Ofer H., 2004. "What sustains social norms and how they evolve?: The case of tipping," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 49-64, May.
  16. Khalil, Elias L., 2004. "What is altruism?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 97-123, February.
  17. Elias L. KHALIL, 2001. "Adam Smith and Three Theories of Altruism," Discussion Papers (REL - Recherches Economiques de Louvain) 2001044, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
  18. Khalil, Elias L., 1999. "Sentimental fools: a critique of Amartya Sen's notion of commitment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 373-386, December.
  19. Andreoni, James, 1988. "Why free ride? : Strategies and learning in public goods experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 291-304, December.
  20. Khalil, Elias L., 1990. "Beyond Self-Interest and Altruism: A Reconstruction of Adam Smith's Theory of Human Conduct," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(02), pages 255-273, October.
  21. Frank, Robert H, 1987. "If Homo Economicus Could Choose His Own Utility Function, Would He Want One with a Conscience?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(4), pages 593-604, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Werner Güth, 2005. "On Inequity Aversion," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2005-24, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vas:papers:55. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sean Flynn) The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Sean Flynn to update the entry or send us the correct address.

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.