IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/jrp/jrpwrp/2007-096.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Listen: I am angry! An experiment comparing ways of revealing emotions

Author

Listed:
  • Werner Güth

    (Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group, Jena, Germany)

  • M. Vittoria Levati

    () (Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group, Jena, Germany)

Abstract

We report on an experiment designed to explore whether allowing individuals to voice their anger prevents costly punishment. For this sake, we use an ultimatum minigame and distinguish two treatments: one in which responders can only accept or reject the other, and the other in which they can also scold the proposer. By an unannounced successive two-person public goods game, with either the same partner or a different one, we additionally explore how "having a voice" affects later behavior. The evidence supports the conclusion that voicing one's outrage crowds out the need to harm oneself and the other. Yet, this emotional reaction does not lead to increased future cooperation.

Suggested Citation

  • Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati, 2007. "Listen: I am angry! An experiment comparing ways of revealing emotions," Jena Economic Research Papers 2007-096, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
  • Handle: RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2007-096
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://zs.thulb.uni-jena.de/receive/jportal_jparticle_00083587
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    2. Banta, H. David & Vondeling, Hindrik, 1994. "Strategies for successful evaluation and policy-making toward health care technology on the move: The case of medical lasers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 1663-1674, June.
    3. Banta, David, 2003. "The development of health technology assessment," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 121-132, February.
    4. Ernst R. Berndt & Rachel Glennerster & Michael R. Kremer & Jean Lee & Ruth Levine & Georg Weizsäcker & Heidi Williams, 2007. "Advance market commitments for vaccines against neglected diseases: estimating costs and effectiveness," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(5), pages 491-511.
    5. McDaid, David & Cookson, Richard AU -, 2003. "Evaluating health care interventions in the European Union," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 133-139, February.
    6. Maynard, Alan & McDaid, David, 2003. "Evaluating health interventions: exploiting the potential," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 215-226, February.
    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. Güth, Werner & Kliemt, Hartmut, 2010. "What ethics can learn from experimental economics -- If anything," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 302-310, September.
    2. Chen, Josie I & Kamei, Kenju, 2014. "Expressing Emotion and Fairness Crowding-out in an Ultimatum Game with Incomplete Information," MPRA Paper 54405, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Anastasios Koukoumelis & M. Vittoria Levati, 2014. "Does expressing disapproval influence future cooperation? An experimental study," Jena Economic Research Papers 2014-022, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    4. Samahita, Margaret, 2015. "Venting and Gossiping in Conflicts: Emotion Expression in Ultimatum Games," Working Papers 2015:33, Lund University, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ultimatum bargaining; Public goods game; Outrage; Punishment;

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • H41 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Public Goods

    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:jrp:jrpwrp:2007-096. 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: (Markus Pasche). General contact details of provider: http://www.jenecon.de .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.