IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hypothetical bias in value orientations ring games


  • Mentzakis, Emmanouil
  • Mestelman, Stuart


The social value orientations ring game is often used to identify behavioral types and provide insight regarding choices made by individuals in market or non-market environments. Following the literature from other experimental fields, this paper is concerned with the presence of hypothetical bias in the method used to identify social value orientation (i.e. a difference between subject behavior when rewards are not salient and subject behavior when rewards are salient). We find no evidence of hypothetical bias in the value orientations or the subjects’ consistency.

Suggested Citation

  • Mentzakis, Emmanouil & Mestelman, Stuart, 2013. "Hypothetical bias in value orientations ring games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 562-565.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:120:y:2013:i:3:p:562-565 DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2013.06.019

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 117(3), pages 817-869.
    2. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    3. Neil Buckley & Kenneth Chan & James Chowhan & Stuart Mestelman & Mohamed Shehata, 2001. "Value Orientations, Income and Displacement Effects, and Voluntary Contributions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(2), pages 183-195, October.
    4. Camerer, Colin F & Hogarth, Robin M, 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 19(1-3), pages 7-42, December.
    5. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    6. Steffen Andersen & Seda Ertac & Uri Gneezy & Moshe Hoffman & John A. List, 2011. "Stakes Matter in Ultimatum Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 3427-3439, December.
    7. Ben-Ner, Avner & Kramer, Amit & Levy, Ori, 2008. "Economic and hypothetical dictator game experiments: Incentive effects at the individual level," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1775-1784, October.
    8. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    9. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    10. Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran & Mestelman, Stuart & Nainar, Khalid & Shehata, Mohamed, 2009. "The impact of social value orientation and risk attitudes on trust and reciprocity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 368-380, June.
    11. repec:feb:framed:0088 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-291, March.
    13. Goeree, Jacob K. & Holt, Charles A., 2000. "Asymmetric inequality aversion and noisy behavior in alternating-offer bargaining games," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(4-6), pages 1079-1089, May.
    14. Carpenter, Jeffrey P., 2003. "Is fairness used instrumentally? Evidence from sequential bargaining," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 467-489, August.
    15. Emmanouil Mentzakis & Stuart Mestelman, 2010. "Hypothetical and convenience sample biases in value orientations ring games," Department of Economics Working Papers 2010-06, McMaster University.
    16. Offerman, Theo & Sonnemans, Joep & Schram, Arthur, 1996. "Value Orientations, Expectations and Voluntary Contributions in Public Goods," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 817-845, July.
    17. Hurley, Jeremiah & Mentzakis, Emmanouil, 2013. "Health-related externalities: Evidence from a choice experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 671-681.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Greiff, Matthias & Ackermann, Kurt & Murphy, Ryan O., 2016. "The influences of social context on the measurement of distributional preferences," Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145529, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    2. Buckley, Neil & Cuff, Katherine & Hurley, Jeremiah & Mestelman, Stuart & Thomas, Stephanie & Cameron, David, 2016. "Should I stay or should I go? Exit options within mixed systems of public and private health care finance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 62-77.
    3. Marti, Joachim & Buckell, John & Maclean, J. Catherine & Sindelar, Jody L., 2017. "To 'Vape' or Smoke? A Discrete Choice Experiment among Adult Smokers," IZA Discussion Papers 10490, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    4. Joachim Marti & John Buckell & Johanna Catherine Maclean & Jody L. Sindelar, 2016. "To ‘Vape’ or Smoke? A Discrete Choice Experiment Among U.S. Adult Smokers," NBER Working Papers 22079, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Müller, Stephan & Rau, Holger A., 2017. "Too cold for warm glow? Christmas-season effects in charitable giving," Center for European, Governance and Economic Development Research Discussion Papers 331, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.

    More about this item


    Ring games; Value orientations; Hypothetical bias;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:120:y:2013:i:3:p:562-565. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.