IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v38y2009i1p89-95.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Experiment timing and preferences for fairness

Author

Listed:
  • Dickinson, David L.

Abstract

Classroom experiments examining fairness preferences [Andreoni, J., Miller, J., 2002. Giving according to GARP: an experimental test of the consistency of preferences for Altruism. Econometrica 70 (2), 737-753] were conducted to examine two issues: first, are classroom points a salient reward medium (comparable to cash in research experiments)? Secondly, does experiment timing during the semester influence results. Subject choices are consistent with the existence of well-behaved utility functions, indicating that points experiments can be valid. Secondly, subjects are more likely to be "selfish" when the experiment is conducted early rather than late in the academic semester. This result has behavioral implications for environments where nonmonetary incentives prevail, as well as implications for the growing number of instructors using experiments and follow-up discussion in the classroom.

Suggested Citation

  • Dickinson, David L., 2009. "Experiment timing and preferences for fairness," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 89-95, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:38:y:2009:i:1:p:89-95
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6W5H-4STB0FH-1/2/73842145d5d8a684f017581c66276622
    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

    as
    1. R. M Isaac & J. Walker & A. Williams, 2010. "Group Size and the Voluntary Provision of Public Goods: Experimental Evidence Utilizing Very Large Groups," Levine's Working Paper Archive 11, David K. Levine.
    2. Tisha L. N. Emerson & Beck A. Taylor, 2004. "Comparing Student Achievement across Experimental and Lecture-Oriented Sections of a Principles of Microeconomics Course," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 672-693, January.
    3. Robert H. Frank & Thomas Gilovich & Dennis T. Regan, 1993. "Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 159-171, Spring.
    4. Bruno Frey & Stephan Meier, 2005. "Selfish and Indoctrinated Economists?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 165-171, April.
    5. David L. Dickinson, 2002. "A Bargaining Experiment to Motivate Discussion on Fairness," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(2), pages 136-151, June.
    6. Isaac, R. Mark & Walker, James M. & Williams, Arlington W., 1994. "Group size and the voluntary provision of public goods : Experimental evidence utilizing large groups," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 1-36, May.
    7. Afriat, Sidney N, 1972. "Efficiency Estimation of Production Function," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 13(3), pages 568-598, October.
    8. Schotter, Andrew & Sopher, Barry, 2007. "Advice and behavior in intergenerational ultimatum games: An experimental approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 365-393, February.
    9. Frank, Bjorn, 1997. "The Impact of Classroom Experiments on the Learning of Economics: An Empirical Investigation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 35(4), pages 763-769, October.
    10. Varian, H.R., 1991. "Goodness of Fit for Revealed Preference Tests," Papers 13, Michigan - Center for Research on Economic & Social Theory.
    11. James C. Cox & Cary A. Deck, 2005. "On the Nature of Reciprocal Motives," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 43(3), pages 623-635, July.
    12. James Stodder, 1998. "Experimental Moralities: Ethics in Classroom Experiments," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 127-138, June.
    13. Charles A. Holt, 1999. "Teaching Economics with Classroom Experiments: A Symposium," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(3), pages 603-610, January.
    14. Hoffman, Elizabeth & McCabe, Kevin & Smith, Vernon L, 1996. "Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 653-660, June.
    15. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    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. Jan Heufer, 2013. "Testing revealed preferences for homotheticity with two-good experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(1), pages 114-124, March.
    2. Matej Opatrny, 2018. "Extent of Irrationality of the Consumer: Combining the Critical Cost Eciency and Houtman Maks Indices," Working Papers IES 2018/11, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, revised Apr 2018.
    3. Steven Tucker & Shuze Ding & Volodymyr Lugovskyy & Daniela Puzzello & Arlington Williams, 2017. "Cash versus Extra-Credit Incentives in Experimental Asset Markets," Working Papers in Economics 17/21, University of Waikato.
    4. Jan Heufer & Paul van Bruggen, 2016. "Afriat in the Lab," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-095/I, Tinbergen Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Fairness Experiments Education;

    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:soceco:v:38:y:2009:i:1:p:89-95. 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: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    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.