Individual sense of fairness: An experimental study

Experimental Economics

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 174-189

  Karni, Edi ^a   Salmon, Tim ^b   Sopher, Barry ^c  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Choise under uncertainty; Dictator game; Preferences for fairness

Indexed keywords

EID: 44649197084     PISSN: 13864157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10683-007-9165-1     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (2000). Giving according to GARP: an experimental test of the rationality of altruism. Working Paper.
2. Bolton, G., Brandts, J., & Ockenfels, A. (2005). Fair procedures: evidence from games involving lotteries. The Economic Journal, 115, 1054-1076.
3. Bolton, G., & Ockenfels, A. (1998). Strategy and equity: an ERC-analysis of the Güth-van Damme game. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42, 215-226.
4. Bolton, G., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: a theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. American Economic Review, 90(1), 166-193.
5. Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
6. Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 817-869.
7. Dana, J., Weber, R., & Kuang, J. X. (2004). Exploiting 'Moral Wriggle Room': behavior inconsistent with a preference for fair outcomes. Working Paper, Carnegie Mellon University.
8. Elster, J. (1998). Emotions and economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 47-74.
9. Engelmann, D., & Strobel, M. (2004). Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. American Economic Review, 94(4), 857-869.
10. Fisman, R., Kariv, S., & Markovits, D. (2005a). Individual preferences for giving. Working Paper, UC Berkeley.
11. Fisman, R., Kariv, S., & Markovits, D. (2005b). Pareto damaging behaviors. Working Paper, UC Berkeley.
12. Fisman, R., Kariv, S., & Markovits, D. (2005c). Distinguishing social preferences from preferences for altruism. Working Paper, UC Berkeley.
13. Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347-369.
14. Güth, W., & van Damme, E. (1998). Information, strategic behavior and fairness in ultimatum bargaining: an experimental study. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42, 227-247.
15. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. L. (1994). Preferences, property rights and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 346-380.
16. Hume, D. (1740). Treatise on human nature. London: J.M. Dent, 1939.
17. Kagel, J., & Wolfe, K. (2001). Testing between alternative models of fairness: a new three person ultimatum game. Experimental Economics, 4, 203-220.
18. Karni, E., & Safra, Z. (2002a). Individual sense of justice: a utility representation. Econometrica, 70, 263-284.
19. Karni, E., & Safra, Z. (2002b). Intensity of the sense of fairness: measurement and behavioral characterization. Journal of Economic Theory, 105, 318-337.
20. Loewenstein, G. (2000). Emotions in economic theory and economic behavior. The American Economic Review; Papers and Proceedings, 426-432.
21. Rawls, J. (1963). The sense of justice. Philosophical Review, 72, 281-305.
22. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
23. Romer, P. M. (2000). Thinking and feeling. The American Economic Review; Papers and Proceedings, 439-443.
24. Smith, A. (1759). The theory of moral sentiments (new ed.), D. D. Raphael & A. L. Macfie (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.
25. Smith, V. L. (1976). Experimental economics: induced value theory. American Economic Review, 66(2), 274-279.
26. Sopher, B., & Narramore, M. (2000). Stochastic choice in decision making under risk: an experimental study. Theory and Decision, 48, 323-350.