We demonstrate that a simple model, constructed on the premise that people are motivated by both their pecuniary payoff and their relative payoff standing, organizes a large and seemingly disparate set of laboratory observations as one consistent pattern The model is incomplete information but nevertheless posed entirely in terms of directly observable variables The model explains observations from games where equity is thought to be a factor, such as ultimatum and dictator, games where reciprocity is thought to play a role, such as the prisoner's dilemma and gift exchange, and games where competitive behavior is observed, such as Bertrand markets (JEL C78, C90, D63, D64, H41)

/pdf/erc-a-theory-of-equity-reciprocity-and-competition-9lhkqwqjzg.pdf

ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition

With the publication of The Logic of Collective Action in 1965, Mancur Olson challenged a cherished foundation of modern democratic thought that groups would tend to form and take collective action...

/pdf/collective-action-and-the-evolution-of-social-norms-39il4hoxmh.pdf

Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms

This article discusses the economic implications of reciprocity. A long-standing tradition in economics views human beings as exclusively self-interested. In most economic accounts of individual behavior and aggregate social phenomena, the vast forces of greed are put at the center of the explanation. However, many people deviate from purely self-interested behavior in a reciprocal manner. Reciprocity means that in response to friendly actions, people are frequently much nicer and much more cooperative than predicted by the self-interest model; conversely, in response to hostile actions they are frequently much more nasty and even brutal. There is considerable evidence that a substantial fraction of people behave according to this dictum: People repay gifts and take revenge even in interactions with complete strangers and even if it is costly for them and yields neither present nor future material rewards. This notion of reciprocity is thus very different from kind or hostile responses in repeated interactions that are solely motivated by future material gains.

/pdf/fairness-and-retaliation-the-economics-of-reciprocity-3kli7g3xjv.pdf

Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity

In recent years, there has been a steadily increasing interest on the part of economists in happiness research. We argue that reported subjective well-being is a satisfactory empirical approximation to individual utility and that happiness research is able to contribute important insights for economics. We report how the economic variables income, unemployment and inflation affect happiness as well as how institutional factors, in particular the type of democracy and the extent of government decentralization, systematically influence how satisfied individuals are with their life. We discuss some of the consequences for economic policy and for economic theory.

/pdf/what-can-economists-learn-from-happiness-research-tp056e628i.pdf

What can economists learn from happiness research

https://www.econ.uzh.ch/dam/jcr:ffffffff-9758-127f-0000-00003449356a/ArePeopleCondCooperative.pdf

Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment

While increasing the number of small donors, standard linear matching schemes have been shown to cause considerable crowding out in charitable giving with pronounced effects on large gifts. We propose a form of threshold matching where donations above a certain, potentially personalized, threshold are topped up with a fixed amount. We show theoretically that threshold matching can induce crowd-ing in if appropriately personalized. In a field experiment, we explore how thresholds should be chosen depending on past donations. We find that the opti-mal choice of thresholds is rather bold, approximately 60-75% above past dona-tions. Additionally, we explore how thresholds should be set for new donors as a function of their personal characteristics and demonstrate the benefits of person-alization as opposed to setting general thresholds applying to all recipients of a fundraising call.

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/213864/1/ii19-306r.pdf

Personalized fundraising: A field experiment on threshold matching of donations

/pdf/more-order-with-less-law-28byypqowk.pdf

More order with less law

Experimental results on the ultimatum game show clearly that (1) large fractions of players offer a 'fair' allocation and (2) that unfair (but positive) offers are systematically rejected. We offer an explanation of this behavior using the 'indirect evolutionary approach' which is based on the assumption that players behave rationally for given preferences but that their preferences change through an evolutionary process. We prove that despite anonymous interaction a preference for punishing unfair offers is an evolutionarily successful strategy if players interact in small groups. This leads players to split the resource equally almost always. However, the equal split is not due to 'true fairness' (or 'altruism') but is entirely caused by the (justified) fear that unfair offers might be rejected.(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

The Indirect Evolutionary Approach To Explaining Fair Allocations

We study the effects of reputation and competition in a stylized market for experience goods. If interaction is anonymous, such markets perform poorly: sellers are not trustworthy, and buyers do not trust sellers. If sellers are identifiable and can, hence, build a reputation, efficiency quadruples but is still at only a third of the first best. Adding more information by granting buyers access to all sellers’ complete history has, somewhat surprisingly, no effect. On the other hand, we find that competition, coupled with some minimal information, eliminates the trust problem almost completely.

Competition Fosters Trust

This paper studies a model of memory. The model takes into account that memory capacity is limited and imperfect. We study how agents with such memory limitations, who have very little information about their choice environment, play games. We introduce the notion of a Limited Memory Equilibrium (LME) and show that play converges to an LME in every generic normal form game. Our characterization of the set of LME suggests that players with limited memory do (weakly) better in games than in decision problems. We also show that agents can do quite well even with severely limited memory, although severe limitations tend to make them behave cautiously.

http://fmwww.bc.edu/RePEc/es2000/1645.pdf

Steffen Huck

Papers

Personalized fundraising: A field experiment on threshold matching of donations

More order with less law

The Indirect Evolutionary Approach To Explaining Fair Allocations

Competition Fosters Trust

Players with limited memory