Process fairness and dynamic consistency

Economics Letters

Volumn 109, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 187-189

  Trautmann, Stefan T ^a   Wakker, Peter P ^b  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b ERASMUS UNIVERSITY ROTTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Dynamic consistency; Equity; Nonexpected utility; Procedural fairness; Time consistency

Indexed keywords

EID: 77958544017     PISSN: 01651765     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2010.08.031     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Blount S. When social outcomes aren't fair: the effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1995, 63:131-144.
2. Bolton G.E., Ockenfels A. ERC: a theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. The American Economic Review 2000, 90:166-193.
3. Bolton G.E., Ockenfels A. Betrayal aversion: evidence from Brazil, China, Oman, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States: comment. The American Economic Review 2010, 100:628-633.
4. Bolton G.E., Brandts J., Ockenfels A. Fair procedures: evidence from games involving lotteries. The Economic Journal 2005, 115:1054-1076.
5. Bosman R., Sutter M., van Winden F. The impact of real effort and emotions in the power-to-take game. Journal of Economic Psychology 2005, 26:407-429.
6. Charness G. Attribution and reciprocity in an experimental labor market. Journal of Labor Economics 2004, 22:665-688.
7. Cox J.C., Deck C.A. On the nature of reciprocal motives. Economic Inquiry 2005, 43:623-635.
8. Cubitt R.P., Starmer C., Sugden R. Dynamic decisions under uncertainty: some recent evidence from economics and psychology. Reasons and Choices 2004, vol. II:81-107. Oxford University Press, New York. I. Brocas, J.D. Carrillo (Eds.).
9. Fehr E., Schmidt K. A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1999, 114:817-868.
10. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47:263-291.
11. Krawczyk, M.W., 2009. A model of procedural and distributive fairness. Theory and Decision, forthcoming.
12. Kydland F.E., Prescott E.C. Rules rather than discretion: the inconsistency of optimal plans. Journal of Political Economy 1977, 85:473-491.
13. Loewenstein G. Out of control: visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1996, 65:272-292.
14. Machina M.J. Dynamic consistency and non-expected utility models of choice under uncertainty. Journal of Economic Literature 1989, 27:1622-1668.
15. McClennen E.F. Rationality and Dynamic Choice: Foundational Explorations 1990, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
16. Offerman T. Hurting hurts more than helping helps. European Economic Review 2002, 46:1423-1437.
17. Strotz R.H. Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. Review of Economic Studies 1955, 23:165-180.
18. Thaler R. Some empirical evidence on dynamic consistency. Economics Letters 1981, 8:201-207.
19. Trautmann S.T. A tractable model of process fairness under risk. Journal of Economic Psychology 2009, 30:803-813.
20. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business 1986, 59:S251-S278.
21. Van den Bos K., Vermunt R., Wilke H.A.M. Procedural and distributive justice: what is fair depends more on what comes first than on what comes next. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1997, 72:95-104.
22. Volij O. Dynamic consistency, consequentialism and reduction of compound Lotteries. Economics Letters 1994, 46:121-129.