The Generosity Game and calibration of inequity aversion
In the Generosity Game the agreement payoff of the proposer is fixed whereas that of the responder can be varied by the proposer who chooses the pie size. Increasing the pie size increases the (generosity of the) offer by the same amount. We define a unit-square class of Generosity Games by weakening the payoff consequences resulting from a veto by the responder and discuss how the dictator variants can be used to test inequity aversion parameters. Experimental findings, however, so far question inequity aversion as a dominant motive and thus discourage such attempts of assessing its parameters.
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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 39 (2010)
Issue (Month): 2 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175|
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.:
- Charness, Gary B & Rabin, Matthew, 2001.
"Understanding Social Preferences With Simple Tests,"
University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series
qt0dc3k4m5, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
- Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 2003. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," General Economics and Teaching 0303002, EconWPA.
- Charness, Gary & Rabin, Matthew, 2001. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt4qz9k8vg, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Charness, Gary & Rabin, Matthew, 2002. "Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt3d04q5sm, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Dirk Engelmann & Martin Strobel, 2004.
"Inequality Aversion, Efficiency, and Maximin Preferences in Simple Distribution Experiments,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 857-869, September.
- Engelmann Dirk & Strobel Martin, 2002. "Inequality Aversion, Efficiency, and Maximin Preferences in Simple Distribution Experiments," Research Memorandum 015, Maastricht University, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
- 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.
- G. Bolton, 2010.
"A comparative model of bargaining: theory and evidence,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
263, David K. Levine.
- 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.
- Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 1999.
"A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation,"
Munich Reprints in Economics
20650, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., . "A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation," Chapters in Economics, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
- Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, . "A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation," IEW - Working Papers 004, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 1998. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation," CEPR Discussion Papers 1812, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Fellner, Gerlinde & Guth, Werner, 2003. "What limits escalation?--Varying threat power in an ultimatum experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 53-60, July.
- W. Guth & R. Schmittberger & B. Schwartz, 2010. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Levine's Working Paper Archive 291, David K. Levine.
- Nagore Iriberri & Pedro Rey-Biel, .
"Elicited Beliefs and Social Information in Modified Dictator Games: What Do Dictators Believe Other Dictators Do?,"
405, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
- Nagore Iriberri & Pedro Rey‐Biel, 2013. "Elicited beliefs and social information in modified dictator games: What do dictators believe other dictators do?," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 4(3), pages 515-547, November.
- Nagore Iriberri & Pedro Rey-Biel, 2008. "Elicited beliefs and social information in modified dictator games: What do dictators believe other dictators do?," Economics Working Papers 1137, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jan 2009.
- Georg Kirchsteiger, 1994.
"The role of envy in ultimatum games,"
ULB Institutional Repository
2013/5925, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- 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.
- Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Matteo Ploner, 2009. "Making the World a better Place: Experimental evidence from the generosity Game," Jena Economic Research Papers 2009-071, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics.
- Erte Xiao & Daniel Houser, 2005. "Emotion expression in human punishment behavior," Experimental 0504003, EconWPA, revised 18 May 2005.
- Forsythe Robert & Horowitz Joel L. & Savin N. E. & Sefton Martin, 1994. "Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 347-369, May.
- Brennan, Geoffrey, 1973. "Pareto desirable redistribution: the case of malice and envy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 173-183, April.
- Geoffrey Brennan & Werner Güth & Hartmut Kliemt, 2004. "Approximate Truth in Economic Modelling," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2004-38, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:39:y:2010:i:2:p:155-157. 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: (Zhang, Lei)
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.