(Over-)Stylizing experimental findings and theorizing with sweeping generality
Human decision making is a process guided by different and partly competing motivations that can each dominate behavior and lead to different effects depending on strength and circumstances. "Over-stylizing" neglects such competing concerns and context-dependence, although it facilitates the emergence of elaborate general theories. We illustrate by examples from social dilemma experiments and inequality aversion theories that sweeping empirical claims should be avoided.
|Date of creation:||09 Dec 2008|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Carl-Zeiss-Strasse 3, 07743 JENA|
Phone: +049 3641/ 9 43000
Fax: +049 3641/ 9 43000
Web page: http://www.jenecon.de
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 & Huck, Steffen & Muller, Wieland, 2001. "The Relevance of Equal Splits in Ultimatum Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 161-169, October.
- Guth, Werner & Huck, Steffen & Ockenfels, Peter, 1996. "Two-Level Ultimatum Bargaining with Incomplete Information: An Experimental Study," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(436), pages 593-604, May.
- Werner Güth & Hartmut Kliemt & M. Vittoria Levati & Georg von Wangenheim, 2007.
"On the Coevolution of Retribution and Trustworthiness: An (Indirect) Evolutionary and Experimental Analysis,"
Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE),
Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(1), pages 143-157, March.
- Werner Güth & Hartmut Kliemt & M. Vittoria Levati & Geog von Wangenheim, 2006. "On the Co-evolution of Retribution and Trustworthiness: An (Indirect) Evolutionary and Experimental Analysis," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2006-18, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.