IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v102y2017icp127-137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Jumping the queue: An experiment on procedural preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Dold, Malte
  • Khadjavi, Menusch

Abstract

We present a three-player queuing game to study procedural preferences in a laboratory experiment. Together with markets, queues and waiting lists are universal procedures for allocating goods and services. We designed our queuing game to disentangle motivations of outcome-oriented egoistic preferences, outcome-oriented distributional (inequality aversion) preferences and outcome-independent procedural preferences. In a series of treatments, we introduce a market element and allow two of the three players to bargain over a queue jump, thus violating the queuing procedure. A third player is able to engage in peer punishment to sanction queue jumping. We provide evidence that a simple model of procedural preferences is able to explain the behavior of a share of the subjects in our experiment.

Suggested Citation

  • Dold, Malte & Khadjavi, Menusch, 2017. "Jumping the queue: An experiment on procedural preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 127-137.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:102:y:2017:i:c:p:127-137
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2016.12.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825616301427
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2016.12.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jordi Brandts & Gary Charness, 2011. "The strategy versus the direct-response method: a first survey of experimental comparisons," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 375-398, September.
    2. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    3. Simon Gachter & Ernst Fehr, 2000. "Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 980-994, September.
    4. Charles Noussair & Jan Stoop, 2015. "Time as a medium of reward in three social preference experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 442-456, September.
    5. Falk, Armin & Fischbacher, Urs, 2006. "A theory of reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 293-315, February.
    6. Nikos Nikiforakis & Hans-Theo Normann, 2008. "A comparative statics analysis of punishment in public-good experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(4), pages 358-369, December.
    7. Eliaz, Kfir & Rubinstein, Ariel, 2014. "On the fairness of random procedures," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(2), pages 168-170.
    8. James Konow, 2003. "Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 41(4), pages 1188-1239, December.
    9. Uri Gneezy, 2005. "Deception: The Role of Consequences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 384-394, March.
    10. Chlaß, Nadine & Güth, Werner & Miettinen, Topi, 2019. "Purely procedural preferences - Beyond procedural equity and reciprocity," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 108-128.
    11. Dufwenberg, Martin & Kirchsteiger, Georg, 2004. "A theory of sequential reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 268-298, May.
    12. Felix Oberholzer‐Gee, 2006. "A Market for Time Fairness and Efficiency in Waiting Lines," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 427-440, August.
    13. Bruno Frey & Matthias Benz & Alois Stutzer, 2004. "Introducing Procedural Utility: Not Only What, but Also How Matters," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 160(3), pages 377-401, September.
    14. Michal Krawczyk, 2011. "A model of procedural and distributive fairness," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(1), pages 111-128, January.
    15. Mikhael Shor, 2009. "Procedural Justice in Simple Bargaining Games," Working papers 2012-25, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    16. Richard J. Gilbert & Paul Klemperer, 2000. "An Equilibrium Theory of Rationing," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(1), pages 1-21, Spring.
    17. Tibor Neugebauer & Stefan Traub, 2012. "Public good and private good valuation for waiting time reduction: a laboratory study," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 39(1), pages 35-57, June.
    18. Gary E Bolton & Jordi Brandts & Axel Ockenfels, 2005. "Fair Procedures: Evidence from Games Involving Lotteries," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(506), pages 1054-1076, October.
    19. Bock, Olaf & Baetge, Ingmar & Nicklisch, Andreas, 2014. "hroot: Hamburg Registration and Organization Online Tool," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 117-120.
    20. 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.
    21. Rabin, Matthew, 1993. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1281-1302, December.
    22. Charles Noussair & Daan Soest & Jan Stoop, 2015. "Punishment, reward, and cooperation in a framed field experiment," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(3), pages 537-559, October.
    23. Roger Berger & Heiko Rauhut & Sandra Prade & Dirk Helbing, "undated". "Bargaining over time in ultimatum game experiments," Working Papers CCSS-10-002, ETH Zurich, Chair of Systems Design.
    24. Trautmann, Stefan T., 2009. "A tractable model of process fairness under risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 803-813, October.
    25. Utteeyo Dasgupta, 2011. "Do procedures matter in fairness allocations? Experimental evidence in mixed gender pairings," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(1), pages 820-829.
    26. Lindsay, Cotton M & Feigenbaum, Bernard, 1984. "Rationing by Waiting Lists," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(3), pages 404-417, June.
    27. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Philipp Harms & Claudia Landwehr & Maximilian Lutz & Markus Tepe, 2020. "Deciding how to decide on public goods provision: The role of instrumental vs. intrinsic motives," Working Papers 2018, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    2. Bettina Klaus & Alexandru Nichifor, 2020. "Serial dictatorship mechanisms with reservation prices," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(3), pages 665-684, October.
    3. Casal, Sandro & Fallucchi, Francesco & Quercia, Simone, 2019. "The role of morals in three-player ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 67-79.
    4. Bettina Klaus & Alexandru Nichifor, 2021. "Serial dictatorship mechanisms with reservation prices: heterogeneous objects," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 57(1), pages 145-162, July.
    5. Prada-Medina, Laura & Mantilla, Cesar & Cortes, Darwin, 2022. "Procedural preferences for autonomy: an experimental study with Colombian workers," OSF Preprints s7tcb, Center for Open Science.
    6. Justin Buffat & Matthias Praxmarer & Matthias Sutter, 2020. "The Intrinsic Value of Decision Rights: A Note on Team vs Individual Decision-Making," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_30, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    7. Khadjavi, Menusch & Tjaden, Jasper D., 2018. "Setting the bar - an experimental investigation of immigration requirements," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 160-169.
    8. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Grimm, Veronika & Karakostas, Alexandros, 2020. "Bribing to Queue-Jump: An experiment on cultural differences in bribing attitudes among Greeks and Germans," MPRA Paper 102775, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Cai, Meina & Caskey, Gregory W. & Cowen, Nick & Murtazashvili, Ilia & Murtazashvili, Jennifer Brick & Salahodjaev, Raufhon, 2022. "Individualism, economic freedom, and charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 868-884.
    10. Kleine, Marco & Langenbach, Pascal & Zhurakhovska, Lilia, 2017. "How voice shapes reactions to impartial decision-makers: An experiment on participation procedures," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 241-253.
    11. George Horne & Adrian Furnham, 2023. "Social Distancing and Shopping Behaviour: The Role of Anxiety, Attention, and Awareness on Safety Preferences while Queuing during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(5), pages 1-18, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Randolph Sloof & Ferdinand von Siemens, 2015. "Decision Initiation, Decision Implementation, and the Allocation of Decision Rights," CESifo Working Paper Series 5509, CESifo.
    2. Dato, Simon & Feess, Eberhard & Nieken, Petra, 2019. "Lying and reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 193-218.
    3. Sugden, Robert & Wang, Mengjie, 2020. "Equality of opportunity and the acceptability of outcome inequality," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    4. Bartling Björn & Grieder Manuel & Zehnder Christian, 2014. "Does competition justify inequality?," ECON - Working Papers 158, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Nov 2015.
    5. Krawczyk, Michal & Le Lec, Fabrice, 2015. "Can we neutralize social preference in experimental games?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 340-355.
    6. Bartling, Björn & Grieder, Manuel & Zehnder, Christian, 2017. "Competitive pricing reduces wasteful counterproductive behaviors," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 34-47.
    7. Bartling, Björn & Engl, Florian & Weber, Roberto A., 2014. "Does willful ignorance deflect punishment? – An experimental study," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 512-524.
    8. Mertins, Vanessa & Egbert, Henrik & Könen, Tanja, 2013. "The effects of individual judgments about selection procedures: Results from a power-to-resist game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 112-120.
    9. Friehe, Tim & Utikal, Verena, 2018. "Intentions under cover – Hiding intentions is considered unfair," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 11-21.
    10. Reuben, Ernesto & Riedl, Arno, 2013. "Enforcement of contribution norms in public good games with heterogeneous populations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 122-137.
    11. Danková, Katarína & Servátka, Maroš, 2015. "The house money effect and negative reciprocity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 60-71.
    12. Mertins Vanessa & Albert Max, 2015. "Does Participation Increase Outcome Acceptance? Evidence from a Power-to-take Experiment," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 235(6), pages 584-607, December.
    13. Leibbrandt, Andreas & López-Pérez, Raúl, 2012. "An exploration of third and second party punishment in ten simple games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 753-766.
    14. Hongyu Guan & Xianchen Zhu & Ping Zhang, 2016. "Rule-Inequality-Aversion Preference and Conditional Cooperation in Public Goods Experiments: Economic Experiment Evidence from China," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 799-825, July.
    15. Kölle, Felix, 2015. "Heterogeneity and cooperation: The role of capability and valuation on public goods provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 120-134.
    16. Felix Koelle, 2012. "Heterogeneity and Cooperation in Privileged Groups: The Role of Capability and Valuation on Public Goods Provision," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 03-08, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences.
    17. Robert Oxoby, 2013. "Paretian dictators: constraining choice in a voluntary contribution game," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 125-138, June.
    18. Philippos Louis & Matías Núñez & Dimitrios Xefteris, 2022. "The Virtuous Cycle of Agreement," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(641), pages 326-360.
    19. Brandes, Leif & Franck, Egon, 2012. "Social preferences or personal career concerns? Field evidence on positive and negative reciprocity in the workplace," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 925-939.
    20. Christoph Engel, 2013. "Deterrence by Imperfect Sanctions – A Public Good Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2013_09, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Laboratory experiment; Procedural preferences; Inequality aversion; Queuing;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A12 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Other Disciplines
    • B41 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology - - - Economic Methodology
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:gamebe:v:102:y:2017:i:c:p:127-137. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622836 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.