Do People Keep Socially Unverifiable Promises?
Previous research has suggested that communication and especially promises increase cooperation in laboratory experiments. This has been taken as evidence for internal motivations such as guilt aversion or preference for promise keeping. The original goal of this paper was to examine promises under a double blind payoff procedure to test the alternative explanation that promise keeping was due to external influence and reputational concerns. We find no evidence that communication increases the overall level of cooperation in our double blind experiment. However, our results are due in part to the high level of cooperation that we observe, leading us to conduct additional single blind conditions. Ultimately, we find no evidence that communication or payoff procedures impact aggregate cooperation.
|Date of creation:||01 Dec 2011|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand|
Phone: 64 3 369 3123 (Administrator)
Fax: 64 3 364 2635
Web page: http://www.econ.canterbury.ac.nz
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Barmettler, Franziska & Fehr, Ernst & Zehnder, Christian, 2011.
"Big Experimenter Is Watching You! Anonymity and Prosocial Behavior in the Laboratory,"
IZA Discussion Papers
5925, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Barmettler, Franziska & Fehr, Ernst & Zehnder, Christian, 2012. "Big experimenter is watching you! Anonymity and prosocial behavior in the laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 17-34.
- Franziska Barmettler & Ernst Fehr & Christian Zehnder, 2011. "Big experimenter is watching you! Anonymity and prosocial behavior in the laboratory," ECON - Working Papers 027, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
- Christoph Vanberg, 2008. "Why Do People Keep Their Promises? An Experimental Test of Two Explanations -super-1," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 76(6), pages 1467-1480, November.
- Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus & Tjøtta, Sigve & Torsvik, Gaute, 2007.
"Testing Guilt Aversion,"
Working Papers in Economics
14/07, University of Bergen, Department of Economics.
- Ellingsen, Tore & Johannesson, Magnus & Tjøtta, Sigve & Torsvik, Gaute, 2007. "Testing Guilt Aversion," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 683, Stockholm School of Economics.
- Matthias Sutter, 2009.
"Deception Through Telling the Truth?! Experimental Evidence From Individuals and Teams,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 47-60, 01.
- Matthias Sutter, 2007. "Deception through telling the truth?! Experimental evidence from individuals and teams," Working Papers 2007-26, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
- Topi Miettinen, 2008.
"Contracts and Promises - An Approach to Pre-play Agreements,"
Jena Economic Research Papers
2008-088, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
- Miettinen, Topi, 2008. "Contracts and Promises - An Approach to Pre-play Agreements," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Economics and Finance 707, Stockholm School of Economics.
- Daniel Zizzo, 2010. "Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(1), pages 75-98, March.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cbt:econwp:11/39. 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: (Albert Yee)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.