Finitely repeated games with social preferences

Experimental Economics

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 222-231

  Oechssler, Jörg ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

ERC; Finitely repeated games; Inequity aversion; Social preferences

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876903872     PISSN: 13864157     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10683-012-9336-6     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Balafoutas, L. Kocher, M., Putterman, L., & Sutter, M. (2010). Equality, equity and incentives: an experiment (IZA Discussion Paper No. 5204).
2. Brown, M., Falk, A., & Fehr, E. (2004). Relational contracts and the nature of market interactions. Econometrica, 72(3), 747-780.
3. Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). A theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. American Economic Review, 100, 166-193.
4. Cabrales, A., Nagel, R., & Rodriguez Mora, J. V. (2012). It is Hobbes, not Rousseau: an experiment on voting and redistribution. Experimental Economics, 15(2), 278-308.
5. Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 817-869.
6. Cohn, A., Fehr, E., Herrmann, B., Schneider, F. (2011). Social comparison in the workplace: evidence from a field experiment (IZA Discussion Paper No. 5550).
7. Duffy, J., & Muñoz-García, F. (2012). Patience or fairness? Analyzing social preferences in repeated games. Games, 3(1), 56-77.
8. Engelmann, D., & Strobel, M. (2004). Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. American Economic Review, 94(4), 857-869.
9. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817-868.
10. Fudenberg, D., & Levine, D. K. (2012). Fairness, risk preferences and independence: impossibility theorems. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81, 606-612.
11. Hu, W. (2010). Inequity aversion preference in the dynamic public good game (Mimeo), University of Toulouse.
12. Huck, S., Müller, W., & Normann, H. T. (2001). Stackelberg beats Cournot: on collusion and efficiency in experimental markets. Economic Journal, 111, 749-765.
13. Masclet, D., & Villeval, M.-C. (2008). Punishment, inequality, and welfare: a public good experiment. Social Choice and Welfare, 31, 475-502.
14. Osborne, M., & Rubinstein, A. (1994). A course in game theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
15. Rabin, M., & Weizsäcker, G. (2009). Narrow bracketing and dominated choices. American Economic Review, 99(4), 1508-1543.
16. Rubinstein, A., & Wolinsky, A. (1995). Remarks on infinitely repeated extensive-form games. Games and Economic Behavior, 9, 110-115.
17. Sousa, S. (2010). Cooperation and punishment under uncertain enforcement (CeDex Discussion Paper No. 2010-06), University of Nottingham.
18. Sutter, M., Haigner, S., & Kocher, M. (2010). Choosing the stick or the carrot? Endogenous institutional choice in social dilemma situations. Review of Economic Studies, 77(4), 1540-1566.
19. Teyssier, S. (2008). Experimental evidence on inequity aversion and self-selection between incentive contracts (GATE working paper W. P. 08-21).
20. Trautmann, S. T. (2009). A tractable model of process fairness under risk. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(5), 803-813.
21. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.