Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-9klzr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T22:14:12.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual sense of fairness: an experimental study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Edi Karni ,
Tim Salmon  and
Barry Sopher
Edi Karni*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Mergenthaler 469, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles St., Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
Tim Salmon*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2180, USA
Barry Sopher*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Rutgers, The State University, 75 Hamilton St., NJ Hall Room 202, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1248, USA
*
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many prior studies have identified that subjects in experiments demonstrate preferences for fair allocations. We present an experimental study designed to test whether a similar concern for fairness manifests itself when the decision maker is choosing among differing probabilistic allocation mechanisms that will all generate an ex post unfair allocation by assigning an indivisible prize to one individual. This investigation is inspired by Karni and Safra (Econometrica, 70, 263-284, 2002) in which a structure for preferences for fairness in such an environment was developed. Here we use this model to design experiments that allow us to test for the presence of concern for fairness in individual choice behavior and examine some factors that may affect the intensity of the concern for fairness.

Keywords

Dictator gamePreferences for fairnessChoise under uncertainty

JEL classification

D63: Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 174 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10683-007-9165-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

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

Karni et al. supplementary material

Karni et al. supplementary material
Download Karni et al. supplementary material(File)
File 134.9 KB