IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/not/notcdx/2009-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Moral Costs of Nastiness

Author

Listed:
  • Klaus Abbink

    (CREED, University of Amsterdam)

  • Benedikt Herrmann

    (School of Economics, The University of Nottingham)

Abstract

We introduce two variants of the one-shot joy-of-destruction minigame (mini-JOD). Two players are endowed with the same amount of money. They simultaneously decide whether or not to reduce the payoff of the other player at an own cost. In one treatment there was a probability that Nature would destroy the opponent’s money anyway. We test whether this feature reduces the moral costs of being nasty, and find that destruction rates rise significantly, despite the absence of strategic reasons.

Suggested Citation

  • Klaus Abbink & Benedikt Herrmann, 2009. "The Moral Costs of Nastiness," Discussion Papers 2009-10, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    • Handle: RePEc:not:notcdx:2009-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cedex/documents/papers/2009-10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kirchsteiger, Georg, 1994. "The role of envy in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 373-389, December.
    2. Daniel J. Zizzo & Andrew J. Oswald, 2001. "Are People Willing to Pay to Reduce Others'Incomes?," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 63-64, pages 39-65.
    3. Tatsuyoshi Saijo & Hideki Nakamura, 1995. "The “Spite†Dilemma in Voluntary Contribution Mechanism Experiments," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 39(3), pages 535-560, September.
    4. repec:adr:anecst:y:2001:i:63-64:p:03 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:adr:anecst:y:2001:i:63-64:p:04 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:dpr:wpaper:0370 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, "undated". "Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity - Evidence and Economic Applications," IEW - Working Papers 075, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    2. Friedel Bolle & Jonathan H. W. Tan & Daniel John Zizzo, 2014. "Vendettas," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(2), pages 93-130, May.
    3. Zeballos, Eliana, 2015. "Getting a Leg Up or Pulling it Down? Interpersonal Comparisons and Destructive Actions: Experimental Evidence from Bolivia," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205660, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Casal, Sandro & Güth, Werner & Jia, Mofei & Ploner, Matteo, 2012. "Would you mind if I get more? An experimental study of the envy game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 857-865.
    5. Müller, Julia & Schwieren, Christiane & Spitzer, Florian, 2016. "What Drives Destruction? On the Malleability of Anti-Social Behavior," Department of Economics Working Paper Series 238, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    6. Ronayne, David & Sgroi, Daniel, 2018. "Ignoring Good Advice," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 359, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    7. Brice Corgnet & Antonio M. Espin & Roberto Hernán-González, 2015. "The cognitive basis of social behavior : cognitive reflection overrides antisocial but not always prosocial motives," Post-Print hal-02311954, HAL.
    8. Ronayne, David & Sgroi, Daniel, "undated". "When Good Advice is Ignored: The Role of Envy and Stubbornness," Economic Research Papers 269082, University of Warwick - Department of Economics.
    9. Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2001. "Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity," Discussion Papers in Economics 14, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    10. Hans-Rüdiger Pfister & Gisela Böhm, 2012. "Responder Feelings in a Three-Player Three-Option Ultimatum Game: Affective Determinants of Rejection Behavior," Games, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-29, February.
    11. Gangadharan, Lata & Grossman, Philip J. & Molle, Mana Komai & Vecci, Joe, 2019. "Impact of social identity and inequality on antisocial behaviour," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 199-215.
    12. Müller, Julia & Schwieren, Christiane & Spitzer, Florian, 2022. "How to prevent destruction – On the malleability of anti-social behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    13. Klaus Abbink & Benedikt Herrmann, 2011. "The Moral Costs Of Nastiness," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 49(2), pages 631-633, April.
    14. Kebede, Bereket & Zizzo, Daniel John, 2015. "Social Preferences and Agricultural Innovation: An Experimental Case Study from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 267-280.
    15. Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & Schröder, Marina, 2016. "Materialistic, pro-social, anti-social, or mixed – A within-subject examination of self- and other-regarding preferences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 114-124.
    16. Agnes Bäker & Werner Güth & Kerstin Pull & Manfred Stadler, 2012. "On the Context-Dependency of Inequality Aversion - Experimental Evidence and a Stylized Model -," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-023, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    17. Christian Thöni, 2014. "Inequality aversion and antisocial punishment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 529-545, April.
    18. Nicolas Jacquemet & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2014. "What drives failure to maximize payoffs in the lab? A test of the inequality aversion hypothesis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(4), pages 243-264, December.
    19. Belot, Michèle & Schröder, Marina, 2013. "Sloppy work, lies and theft: A novel experimental design to study counterproductive behaviour," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 233-238.
    20. Guha, Brishti, 2018. "Malice in the Rubinstein bargaining game," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 82-86.

    More about this item

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. Economic Logic blog

    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:not:notcdx:2009-10. 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: Jose V Guinot Saporta (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdnotuk.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.