The generosity effect: Fairness in sharing gains and losses
We explore the interaction between fairness attitudes and reference dependence both theoretically and experimentally. Our theory of fairness behavior under reference-dependent preferences in the context of ultimatum games, defines fairness in the utility domain and not in the domain of dollar payments. We test our model predictions using a within-subject design with ultimatum and dictator games involving gains and losses of varying amounts. Proposers indicated their offer in gain- and (neatly comparable) loss- games; responders indicated minimum acceptable gain and maximum acceptable loss. We find a significant “generosity effect” in the loss domain: on average, proposers bear the largest share of losses as if anticipating responders’ call for a smaller share. In contrast, reference dependence hardly affects the outcome of dictator games -where responders have no veto right- though we detect a small but significant “compassion effect”, whereby dictators are on average somewhat more generous sharing losses than sharing gains.
|Date of creation:||29 Aug 2013|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Schlossplatz 1, 10178 Berlin|
Phone: +49 (0)30 21231 0
Fax: +49 (0)30 21231 9
Web page: http://www.esmt.org
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Guth, Werner & Tietz, Reinhard, 1990. "Ultimatum bargaining behavior : A survey and comparison of experimental results," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 417-449, September.
- Hessel Oosterbeek & Randolph Sloof & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2004.
"Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis,"
Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 171-188, 06.
- Hessel Oosterbeek & Randolph Sloof & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2004. "Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis," Experimental 0401003, EconWPA.
- Steffen Andersen & Seda Ertac & Uri Gneezy & Moshe Hoffman & John A. List, 2011.
"Stakes Matter in Ultimatum Games,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 3427-3439, December.
- Steffen Andersen & Seda Ertac & Uri Gneezy & Moshe Hoffman & John List, 2011. "Stakes matter in ultimatum games," Framed Field Experiments 00118, The Field Experiments Website.
- Andersen, Steffen & Ertaç, Seda & Gneezy, Uri & Hoffman , Moshe & List, John A., 2011. "Stakes Matter in Ultimatum Games," Working Papers 01-2011, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
- John Kagel & Katherine Wolfe, 2001. "Tests of Fairness Models Based on Equity Considerations in a Three-Person Ultimatum Game," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(3), pages 203-219, December.
- Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
- Brit Grosskopf, 2003. "Reinforcement and Directional Learning in the Ultimatum Game with Responder Competition," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(2), pages 141-158, October.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-1061.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:esm:wpaper:esmt-13-08. 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: (ESMT Faculty Publications)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.