Big experimenter is watching you! Anonymity and prosocial behavior in the laboratory

Games and Economic Behavior

Volumn 75, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 17-34

  Barmettler, Franziska ^a   Fehr, Ernst ^b   Zehnder, Christian ^c  

^a Foundation for Global Sustainability (FFGS)   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Anonymity; Laboratory experiments; Prosocial behavior; Scrutiny

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859886196     PISSN: 08998256     EISSN: 10902473     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2011.09.003     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Ackert, L.F., Gillette, A.B., Martinez-Vazquez, J., Rider, M., 2009. Risk tolerance, self-interest, and social preferences. Georgia State University Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series, 2009-04.
2. Andersen, S., Ertac, S., Gneezy, U., Hoffman, M., List, J.A., forthcoming. Stakes matter in ultimatum games. Amer. Econ. Rev.
3. Andreoni J. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving?. Econ. J. 1990, 100:464-477.
4. Andreoni J. Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: The effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. Quart. J. Econ. 1995, 110:1-21.
5. Bardsley N., Cubitt R., Loomes G., Moffatt P., Starmer C., Sugden R. Experimental Economics: Rethinking the Rules 2010, Princeton University Press.
6. Bartling B., von Siemens F. The intensity of incentives in firms and markets: Moral hazard with envious agents. Lab. Econ. 2010, 17:598-607.
7. Belot, M., Duch, R., Miller, L., 2010. Who should be called to the lab? A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games. Discussion Papers 2010001, University of Oxford, Nuffield College.
8. Benabou R., Tirole J. Incentives and prosocial behavior. Amer. Econ. Rev. 2006, 96:1652-1678.
9. Berg J., Dickhaut J., McCabe K. Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ. Behav. 1995, 10:122-142.
10. Bohnet I., Frey B.S. Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games: Comment. Amer. Econ. Rev. 1999, 89:335-339.
11. Bolton G.E., Ockenfels A. ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Amer. Econ. Rev. 2000, 90:166-193.
12. Bolton G.E., Zwick R. Anonymity versus punishment in ultimatum bargaining. Games Econ. Behav. 1995, 10:95-121.
13. Bolton G.E., Zwick R., Katok E. Dictator game giving: Rules of fairness versus acts of kindness. Int. J. Game Theory 1998, 27:269-299.
14. Bowles S., Hwang S.-H. Social preferences and public economics: Mechanism design when social preferences depend on incentives. J. Public Econ. 2008, 92:1811-1820.
15. Brown M., Falk A., Fehr E. Relational contracts and the nature of market interactions. Econometrica 2004, 72:747-780.
16. Burks S., Carpenter J., Goette L. Performance pay and worker cooperation: Evidence from an artefactual field experiment. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2009, 70:458-469.
17. Camerer C.F. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Roundtable Ser. Behav. Econ 2003, Princeton University Press.
18. Cameron L.A. Raising the stakes in the ultimatum game: Experimental evidence from Indonesia. Econ. Inquiry 1999, 37:47-59.
19. Carpenter J., Verhoogen E., Burks S. The effect of stakes in distribution experiments. Econ. Letters 2005, 86:393-398.
20. Charness G., Dufwenberg M. Promises and partnership. Econometrica 2006, 74:1579-1601.
21. Charness G., Rabin M. Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quart. J. Econ. 2002, 117:817-869.
22. Charness G., Villeval M.-C. Cooperation and competition in intergenerational experiments in the field and the laboratory. Amer. Econ. Rev. 2009, 99:956-978.
23. Cherry T.L., Frykblom P., Shogren J.F. Hardnose the dictator. Amer. Econ. Rev. 2002, 92:1218-1221.
24. Cleave, B.L., Nikiforakis, N., Slonim, R., 2010. Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? Department of Economics-Working Papers Series 1106, The University of Melbourne.
25. Cooper, D.J., Kagel, J.H., forthcoming. Other regarding preferences: A selective survey of experimental results. In: Kagel, J.H., Roth, A. (Eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics, vol. 2, Princeton University Press.
26. Cox J.C., Deck C.A. On the nature of reciprocal motives. Econ. Inquiry 2005, 43:623-635.
27. Croson R., Gaechter S. The science of experimental economics. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2010, 73:122-131.
28. Dana J., Cain D.M., Dawes R.M. What you don't know won't hurt me: Costly (but quiet) exit in dictator games. Org. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2006, 100:193-201.
29. Dohmen T., Falk A., Huffman D., Sunde U. Representative trust and reciprocity: Prevalence and determinants. Econ. Inquiry 2008, 46:84-90.
30. Dufwenberg M., Kirchsteiger G. A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games Econ. Behav. 2004, 47:268-298.
31. Dufwenberg M., Muren A. Generosity, anonymity, gender. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2006, 61:42-49.
32. Egas M., Riedl A. The economics of altruistic punishment and the maintenance of cooperation. Proc. R. Soc. Biol. Sci. 2008, 871-878.
33. Ellingsen T., Johannesson M. Paying respect. J. Econ. Perspect. 2007, 21:135-150.
34. Ellingsen T., Johannesson M. Pride and prejudice: The human side of incentive theory. Amer. Econ. Rev. 2008, 98:990-1008.
35. Falk, A., Meier, S., Zehnder, C., forthcoming. Do lab experiments misrepresent social preferences? The case of self-selected student samples. J. Europ. Econ. Assoc.
36. Falk A., Fehr E., Zehnder C. Fairness perceptions and reservation wages-The behavioral effects of minimum wage laws. Quart. J. Econ. 2006, 121:1347-1381.
37. Falk A., Fischbacher U. A theory of reciprocity. Games Econ. Behav. 2006, 54:293-315.
38. Falk A., Heckman J. Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science 2009, 326:535-538.
39. Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., Tougareva, E., 2002. Do high stakes and competition undermine fairness? Evidence from Russia. IEW-Working Papers iewwp120, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics-IEW.
40. Fehr E., Gaechter S. Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. Amer. Econ. Rev. 2000, 90:980-994.
41. Fehr E., Gaechter S., Kirchsteiger G. Reciprocity as a contract enforcement device: Experimental evidence. Econometrica 1997, 65:833-860.
42. Fehr E., Hart O., Zehnder C. Contracts as reference points-Experimental evidence. Amer. Econ. Rev. 2011, 101:493-525.
43. Fehr E., Klein A., Schmidt K.M. Fairness and contract design. Econometrica 2007, 75:121-154.
44. Fehr E., List J.A. The hidden costs and returns of incentives-Trust and trustworthiness among CEOs. J. Europ. Econ. Assoc. 2004, 2:743-771.
45. Fehr E., Schmidt K.M. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quart. J. Econ. 1999, 114:817-868.
46. Fehr E., Schmidt K. Theories of fairness and reciprocity-Evidence and economic application. Advances in Economics and Econometrics-8th World Congress, Econometric Society Monographs 2003, 208-257. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. M. Dewatripont, L.P. Hansen, S.J. Turnovsky (Eds.).
47. Forsythe R., Horowitz J.L., Savin N.E., Sefton M. Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games Econ. Behav. 1994, 6:347-369.
48. Frohlich N., Oppenheimer J., Bernard Moore J. Some doubts about measuring self-interest using dictator experiments: the costs of anonymity. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2001, 46:271-290.
49. Glaeser E.L., Laibson D.I., Scheinkman J.A., Soutter C.L. Measuring trust. Quart. J. Econ. 2000, 115:811-846.
50. Goeree J.K., Holt C.A. Asymmetric inequality aversion and noisy behavior in alternating-offer bargaining games. Europ. Econ. Rev. 2000, 44:1079-1089.
51. Gueth W., Schmittberger R., Schwarze B. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1982, 3:367-388.
52. Henrich J., Heine S., Norenzayan A. The weirdest people in the world. Behav. Brain Sci. 2010, 33:61-83.
53. Hoffman E., McCabe K., Shachat K., Smith V.L. Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games Econ. Behav. 1994, 7:346-380.
54. Hoffman E., McCabe K., Smith V.L. Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. Amer. Econ. Rev. 1996, 86:653-660.
55. Kosfeld M., Okada A., Riedl A. Institution formation in public goods games. Amer. Econ. Rev. 2009, 99:1335-1355.
56. Laury S.K., Walker J.M., Williams A.W. Anonymity and the voluntary provision of public goods. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1995, 27:365-380.
57. Lazear, E., Malmendier, U., Weber, R., 2011. Sorting in experiments with application to social preferences. Working paper.
58. Levine D.K. Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiment. Rev. Econ. Dynam. 1998, 1:593-622.
59. Levitt S.D., List J.A. What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?. J. Econ. Perspect. 2007, 21:153-174.
60. List J.A. Social preferences: Some thoughts from the field. Ann. Rev. Econ. 2009, 1(1). 21.1-21.20.
61. List J.A., Berrens R.P., Bohara A.K., Kerkvliet J. Examining the role of social isolation on stated preferences. Amer. Econ. Rev. 2004, 94:741-752.
62. Loewenstein G. Experimental economics from the vantage-point of behavioural economics. Econ. J. 1999, 109:F23-34.
63. MacLeod W.B. Can contract theory explain social preferences?. Amer. Econ. Rev. 2007, 97:187-192.
64. MacLeod W.B., Malcomson J.M. Motivation and markets. Amer. Econ. Rev. 1998, 88:388-411.
65. Masclet D., Villeval M.-C. Punishment, inequality, and welfare: A public good experiment. Soc. Choice Welfare 2008, 31:475-502.
66. Rabin M. Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Amer. Econ. Rev. 1993, 83:1281-1302.
67. Roth A. Bargaining experiments. The Handbook of Experimental Economics 1995, Princeton University Press, New Jersey. J.H. Kagel, A.E. Roth (Eds.).
68. Schmidt C., Zultan R. The uncontrolled social utility hypothesis revisited. Econ. Bull. 2005, 3:1-7.
69. Slonim R., Roth A.E. Learning in high stakes ultimatum games: An experiment in the Slovak Republic. Econometrica 1998, 66:569-596.
70. Tyran J.-R., Sausgruber R. A little fairness may induce a lot of redistribution in democracy. Europ. Econ. Rev. 2006, 50:469-485.