IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/129535.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Exempting agents from any burden sharing: a lab-experimental study on the distribution of a monetary loss

Author

Listed:
  • Gaertner, Wulf
  • Li, Yi

Abstract

We present findings of an experimental study of negotiations over the share of a monetary loss. Groups of four agents with differing initial endowments must unanimously agree on the contribution that each member is expected to make so that a financial loss imposed on the group is covered. Two types of proposals are of particular interest: Either the agent with the lowest endowment or the agents with the lowest and second lowest endowment are to be exempted from any monetary contribution. These types of proposals can be related to alternative models of loss sharing that will be briefly discussed before presenting the experimental results. We find that exempting the agent with the lowest endowment only was expressed in 120 proposals, exempting the lowest and the second lowest agents only accounted for 50% of all 428 proposals. We consider two different treatments in case of no agreement among the group members, namely a random mechanism among all the proposals made before the bargaining procedure has ended, and, alternatively, a decision taken by the experimenter after bargaining time has elapsed. We also discuss a third type of proposal that we call “other exemptions” which contains rather nasty loss-division proposals that contradict the very idea of fairness and examine our findings in such contexts particularly under the aspect of gender difference.

Suggested Citation

  • Gaertner, Wulf & Li, Yi, 2025. "Exempting agents from any burden sharing: a lab-experimental study on the distribution of a monetary loss," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 129535, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:129535
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/129535/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klaus Abbink & Benedikt Herrmann, 2011. "The Moral Costs Of Nastiness," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 49(2), pages 631-633, April.
    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. Christian Thöni, 2014. "Inequality aversion and antisocial punishment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 529-545, April.
    2. Guha, Brishti, 2018. "Malice in the Rubinstein bargaining game," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-86.
    3. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David & Peterle, Emmanuel, 2018. "Discrimination as favoritism: The private benefits and social costs of in-group favoritism in an experimental labor market," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 220-236.
    4. David Schüller & Thorsten Upmann, 2013. "When Focal Points are Out of Focus: A Game-Theoretic Analysis of Come Dine with Me," CESifo Working Paper Series 4138, CESifo.
    5. Alexander Isakov & David Rand, 2012. "The Evolution of Coercive Institutional Punishment," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 97-109, March.
    6. Dato, Simon & Nieken, Petra, 2014. "Gender differences in competition and sabotage," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 64-80.
    7. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 38-55, January.
    8. Jauernig, Johanna & Uhl, Matthias & Luetge, Christoph, 2016. "Competition-induced punishment of winners and losers: Who is the target?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 13-25.
    9. Vicente, Pedro C. & Vilela, Inês, 2022. "Preventing Islamic radicalization: Experimental evidence on anti-social behavior," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 474-485.
    10. Bogliacino, Francesco & Grimalda, Gianluca & Pipke, David, 2021. "Kind or contented? An investigation of the gift exchange hypothesis in a natural field experiment in Colombia," Kiel Working Papers 2199, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    11. Goeschl, Timo & Jarke, Johannes, 2016. "Second and third party punishment under costly monitoring," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 124-133.
    12. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David, 2019. "Using ethical dilemmas to predict antisocial choices with real payoff consequences: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 195-215.
    13. Cui, Zhiwei & Li, Xueheng & Zhang, Boyu, 2025. "Decomposability and the social comparison trap," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Ingvild Almås & Maximilian Auffhammer & Tessa Bold & Ian Bolliger & Aluma Dembo & Solomon M. Hsiang & Shuhei Kitamura & Edward Miguel & Robert Pickmans, 2019. "Destructive Behavior, Judgment, and Economic Decision-making under Thermal Stress," NBER Working Papers 25785, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Montag, Josef & Tremewan, James, 2020. "Let the punishment fit the criminal: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 423-438.
    17. Levy, Moshe, 2012. "Co-monotonicity: Toward a utility function capturing envy," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 114(1), pages 16-19.
    18. Jipeng Zhang & Elizabeth Brown & Huan Xie, 2020. "Effect of religious priming in prosocial and destructive behaviour," Pacific Economic Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 47-68, February.
    19. Gangadharan, Lata & Grossman, Philip J. & Vecci, Joe, 2021. "Moving on up: The impact of income mobility on antisocial behaviour," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    20. Wladislaw Mill & John Morgan, 2022. "The cost of a divided America: an experimental study into destructive behavior," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 974-1001, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ehl:lserod:129535. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    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.