IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pen/papers/08-037.html

Ashamed to be Selfish

Author

Listed:
  • David Dillenberger

    (Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania)

  • Philipp Sadowski

    (Department of Economics, Duke University)

Abstract

We study a two-stage choice problem, where alternatives are allocations between the decision maker (DM) and a passive recipient. The recipient observes choice behavior in stage two, while stage one choice is unobserved. Choosing selfishly in stage two, in the face of a fairer available alternative, may inflict shame on DM. DM has preferences over sets of alternatives that represent period two choices. We axiomatize a representation that identifies DM’s selfish ranking, her norm of fairness and shame. Altruism is the most prominent motive that can explain non-selfish choice. We identify a condition under which shame to be selfish can mimic altruism, when only stage-two choice is observed by the experimenter. An additional condition implies that the norm of fairness can be characterized as the Nash solution of a bargaining game induced by the second-stage choice problem. The representation is generalized to allow for finitely many recipients and applied to a simple strategic situation, a game of trust.

Suggested Citation

  • David Dillenberger & Philipp Sadowski, 2008. "Ashamed to be Selfish," PIER Working Paper Archive 08-037, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    • Handle: RePEc:pen:papers:08-037
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://economics.sas.upenn.edu/sites/default/files/filevault/working-papers/08-037.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Benabou, Roland & Falk, Armin & Tirole, Jean, 2018. "Narratives, Imperatives, and Moral Reasoning," IZA Discussion Papers 11665, IZA Network @ LISER.
    2. Özgür Evren & Stefania Minardi, 2017. "Warm‐glow Giving and Freedom to be Selfish," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(603), pages 1381-1409, August.
    3. Jinkwon Lee & Sujin Min, 2021. "The effects of repeated induction of emotions on cooperation and punishment," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(3), pages 925-943, July.
    4. Zak, F., 2014. "Psychological Games in the Theory of Choice. II. Shame, Regret, Egoism and Altruism," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 22(2), pages 12-40.
    5. Sarah Ridout, 2020. "A Model of Justification," Papers 2003.06844, arXiv.org.
    6. Norio Takeoka, 2006. "Temptation, Certainty Effect, and Diminishing Self-Control," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000000507, UCLA Department of Economics.
    7. Name-Correa, Alvaro J. & Yildirim, Huseyin, 2016. "“Giving” in to social pressure," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 99-116.
    8. Noor, Jawwad & Takeoka, Norio, 2015. "Menu-dependent self-control," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-20.
    9. Abhinash Borah, 2021. "Moral Hypocrisy in Social Preferences," Working Papers 53, Ashoka University, Department of Economics.
    10. Saito, Kota, 2015. "Impure altruism and impure selfishness," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 158(PA), pages 336-370.
    11. Leandro Gorno, 2010. "Additive representation for preferences over menus in finite choice settings," Working Papers 1292, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Econometric Research Program..
    12. Ellingsen, Tore & Mohlin, Erik, 2019. "Decency," Working Papers 2019:3, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    13. Yosuke Hashidate & Keisuke Yoshihara, 2021. "Stochastic Choice and Social Preferences: Inequity Aversion versus Shame Aversion," Working Papers e155, Tokyo Center for Economic Research.
    14. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Nakajima, Daisuke & Ozdenoren, Emre, 2020. "Willpower and compromise effect," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 15(1), January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    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:pen:papers:08-037. 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.

    We have no bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Administrator (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deupaus.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.