IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v157y2026icp22-33.html

Repugnant transactions: The role of agency and severe consequences

Author

Listed:
  • Erkut, Hande
  • Kübler, Dorothea

Abstract

Repugnance constrains market design because inacceptable or repugnant transactions must be avoided. To better understand what makes a transaction repugnant, we study two potential causes: limited agency, e.g., one party being forced to accept an offer, and severe consequences of the transaction. In a laboratory experiment, we find that spectators prohibit transactions with limited agency more frequently than with full agency, especially when the consequences are severe rather than mild. The main findings of the experiment are corroborated by a vignette study on the acceptability of kidney sales. The results point to policies that can mitigate repugnance.

Suggested Citation

  • Erkut, Hande & Kübler, Dorothea, 2026. "Repugnant transactions: The role of agency and severe consequences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 22-33.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:157:y:2026:i:c:p:22-33
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2026.01.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825626000114
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2026.01.001?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Christine L. Exley & Judd B. Kessler, 2024. "Equity Concerns Are Narrowly Framed," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 147-179, May.
    3. Alexander L. Davis & Nadja R. Jehli & John H. Miller & Roberto A. Weber, 2011. "Generosity across contexts," ECON - Working Papers 050, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Mar 2015.
    4. Sandro Ambuehl & B. Douglas Bernheim & Axel Ockenfels, 2021. "What Motivates Paternalism? An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(3), pages 787-830, March.
    5. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    6. Alvin E. Roth & Stephanie W. Wang, 2020. "Opinion: Popular repugnance contrasts with legal bans on controversial markets," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(33), pages 19792-19798, August.
    7. Björn Bartling & Alexander W. Cappelen & Henning Hermes & Marit Skivenes & Bertil Tungodden, 2023. "Free to fail? Paternalistic preferences in the United States," ECON - Working Papers 436, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised May 2025.
    8. Erin L. Krupka & Roberto A. Weber, 2013. "Identifying Social Norms Using Coordination Games: Why Does Dictator Game Sharing Vary?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 495-524, June.
    9. Leonardo Bursztyn & Georgy Egorov & Stefano Fiorin, 2020. "From Extreme to Mainstream: The Erosion of Social Norms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(11), pages 3522-3548, November.
    10. Julio J. Elías & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2019. "Paying for Kidneys? A Randomized Survey and Choice Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(8), pages 2855-2888, August.
    11. Jonathan Chapman & Mark Dean & Pietro Ortoleva & Erik Snowberg & Colin Camerer, 2021. "On the Relation between Willingness to Accept and Willingness to Pay," Working Papers 2021-90, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    12. Sandro Ambuehl & Muriel Niederle & Alvin E. Roth, 2015. "More Money, More Problems? Can High Pay Be Coercive and Repugnant?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 357-360, May.
    13. Sandro Ambuehl & Axel Ockenfels, 2017. "The Ethics of Incentivizing the Uninformed: A Vignette Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 91-95, May.
    14. Moghaddasi Kelishomi, Ali & Sgroi, Daniel, 2024. "A field study of donor behaviour in the Iranian kidney market," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    15. Michael A. Clemens, 2018. "Testing for Repugnance in Economic Transactions: Evidence from Guest Work in the Gulf," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(S1), pages 5-44.
    16. Luigino Bruni & Robert Sugden, 2013. "Reclaiming Virtue Ethics for Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(4), pages 141-164, Fall.
    17. Alvin E. Roth, 2007. "Repugnance as a Constraint on Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 37-58, Summer.
    18. Erkut, Hande, 2022. "Social norms and preferences for generosity are domain dependent," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 121-140.
    19. 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.
    20. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard, 1986. "Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 728-741, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kübler, Dorothea & Erkut, Hande, 2022. "Repugnant Transactions: The Role of Agency and Extreme Consequences," VfS Annual Conference 2022 (Basel): Big Data in Economics 264052, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    2. Erkut, Hande & Kübler, Dorothea, 2026. "Repugnant transactions: The role of agency and severe consequences," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 157, pages 22-33.
    3. Karen Evelyn Hauge & Snorre Kverndokk & Andreas Lange, 2021. "Why People Oppose Trade Institutions - On Morality, Fairness and Risky Actions," CESifo Working Paper Series 9456, CESifo.
    4. Sandro Ambuehl, 2024. "An experimental test of whether financial incentives constitute undue inducement in decision-making," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(5), pages 835-845, May.
    5. Max R. P. Grossmann, 2024. "Knowledge and Freedom: Evidence on the Relationship Between Information and Paternalism," Papers 2410.20970, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2024.
    6. Hauge, Karen E. & Kverndokk, Snorre & Lange, Andreas, 2024. "Opposition to markets: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    7. Julio Elías & Nicola Lacetera & Mario Macis, 2026. "Is the Price Right? The Role of Economic Trade-Offs in Explaining Reactions to Price Surges," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 72(3), pages 1814-1834, March.
    8. Erkut, Hande, 2022. "Social norms and preferences for generosity are domain dependent," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 121-140.
    9. Persson, Emil & Tinghög, Gustav, 2024. "Repugnant markets and preferences in public," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    10. Itai Ashlagi & Alvin E. Roth, 2021. "Kidney Exchange: An Operations Perspective," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5455-5478, September.
    11. Christine L. Exley & Judd B. Kessler, 2018. "Equity Concerns are Narrowly Framed," NBER Working Papers 25326, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Christoph Becker & Dietmar Fehr & Hannes Rau & Stefan T. Trautmann & Yilong Xu, 2025. "Fairness Properties of Compensation Schemes," CESifo Working Paper Series 11943, CESifo.
    13. Katharina Huesmann & Achim Wambach, 2015. "Constraints on Matching Markets Based on Moral Concerns," CESifo Working Paper Series 5356, CESifo.
    14. Werner, Peter, 2024. "On common evaluation standards and the acceptance of wage inequality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 137-156.
    15. Heinicke, Franziska & König-Kersting, Christian & Schmidt, Robert, 2022. "Injunctive vs. descriptive social norms and reference group dependence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 199-218.
    16. Barron, Kai & Stüber, Robert & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2019. "Motivated motive selection in the lying-dictator game," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2019-303, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    17. Bejarano, Hernán & Corgnet, Brice & Gómez-Miñambres, Joaquín, 2021. "Economic stability promotes gift-exchange in the workplace," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 374-398.
    18. Hugh-Jones, David & Ooi, Jinnie, 2023. "Where do fairness preferences come from? Norm transmission in a teen friendship network," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    19. Elias, Julio & Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario, 2016. "Efficiency-Morality Trade-Offs in Repugnant Transactions: A Choice Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 10187, IZA Network @ LISER.
    20. Felix Koelle & Lukas Wenner, 2018. "Present-Biased Generosity: Time Inconsistency across Individual and Social Contexts," Discussion Papers 2018-02, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D84 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Expectations; Speculations

    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:157:y:2026:i:c:p:22-33. 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.