IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uea/ueaeco/2021-03.html

By Chance or by Choice? Biased Attribution of Others'Outcomes when Social Preferences Matter

Author

Listed:
  • Nisvan Erkal

    (University of Melbourne)

  • Lata Gangadharan

    (Monash University)

  • Boon Han Koh

    (University of East Anglia)

Abstract

Decision makers in positions of power often make unobserved choices under risk and uncertainty. In many cases, they face a trade-off between maximizing their own payoff and those of other individuals. What inferences are made in such instances about their choices when only outcomes are observable? We report fndings from two experiments that investigate whether outcomes are attributed to luck or choices. We show that attribution biases exist in the evaluation of good outcomes. On average, good outcomes of decision makers are attributed more to luck as compared to bad outcomes. This asymmetry implies that decision makers get too little credit for their successes. Interestingly, the biases are exhibited by those individuals who make or would make the less prosocial choice for the group as decision makers, suggesting that a consensus effect may be shaping both the belief formation and updating processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Nisvan Erkal & Lata Gangadharan & Boon Han Koh, 2021. "By Chance or by Choice? Biased Attribution of Others'Outcomes when Social Preferences Matter," University of East Anglia School of Economics Working Paper Series 2021-03, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    • Handle: RePEc:uea:ueaeco:2021-03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ueaeco.github.io/working-papers/papers/ueaeco/UEA-ECO-21-03.pdf
    File Function: main text
    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. Friedrichsen, Jana & Momsen, Katharina & Piasenti, Stefano, 2022. "Ignorance, intention and stochastic outcomes☆," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    2. Erkal, Nisvan & Gangadharan, Lata & Koh, Boon Han, 2023. "Do women receive less blame than men? Attribution of outcomes in a prosocial setting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 441-452.
    3. Gangadharan, Lata & Grossman, Philip J. & Xue, Nina, 2024. "Belief elicitation under competing motivations: Does it matter how you ask?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    4. Frollová, Nikola & Tkáčik, Marcel & Houdek, Petr, 2024. "The leadership fallacy: How misattribution of leadership leads to a blaming game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    5. Friedrichsen, Jana & Momsen, Katharina & Piasenti, Stefano, 2022. "Ignorance, intention and stochastic outcomes," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 100, pages 1-1.
    6. Nisvan Erkal & Lata Gangadharan & Boon Han Koh, 2023. "Discrimination in Evaluation Criteria: The Role of Beliefs versus Outcomes," Discussion Papers 2316, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    7. Cappelen, Alexander W. & de Haan, Thomas & Tungodden, Bertil, 2024. "Fairness and limited information: Are people Bayesian meritocrats?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    8. Alexander Coutts & Leonie Gerhards & Zahra Murad, 2024. "What to Blame? Self-Serving Attribution Bias with Multi-Dimensional Uncertainty," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 134(661), pages 1835-1874.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • 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:uea:ueaeco:2021-03. 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: Cara Liggins (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esueauk.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.