IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jinsec/v6y2010i04p445-475_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The behaviour of corporate actors: How much can we learn from the experimental literature?

Author

Listed:
  • ENGEL, CHRISTOPH

Abstract

Much of socially relevant behaviour does not originate in isolated individuals. It is embedded in institutional arrangements. Embeddedness can be so pronounced that outsiders no longer focus on the judgement and decision making of individuals contributing to the course of action. Instead, they ascribe the behaviour to the institution, which they refer to as a corporate actor. This social practice makes it meaningful to compare isolated individuals and corporate actors undertaking the same tasks. This paper surveys the empirical literature on the question from experimental economics, social psychology, and organization science.

Suggested Citation

  • Engel, Christoph, 2010. "The behaviour of corporate actors: How much can we learn from the experimental literature?," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(4), pages 445-475, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:6:y:2010:i:04:p:445-475_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744137410000135/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tan, Fangfang & Xiao, Erte, 2018. "Third-party punishment: Retribution or deterrence?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 34-46.
    2. Christoph Engel & Alexandra Fedorets & Olga Gorelkina, 2018. "How Do Households Allocate Risk?," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1000, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    3. Müller, Wieland & Tan, Fangfang, 2013. "Who acts more like a game theorist? Group and individual play in a sequential market game and the effect of the time horizon," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 658-674.
    4. Steven J. Humphrey & Elke Renner, 2011. "The social costs of responsibility," Discussion Papers 2011-02, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    5. Hildenbrand, Andreas, 2013. "Is a firm a firm? A Stackelberg experiment," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 7, pages 1-26.
    6. Yoshio Iida & Christiane Schwieren, 2016. "Contributing for Myself, but Free riding for My Group?," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 17(1), pages 36-47, February.
    7. Han, Johann & Kairies-Schwarz, Nadja & Vomhof, Markus, 2020. "Quality provision in competitive health care markets: Individuals vs. teams," Ruhr Economic Papers 839, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    8. Alice Martini & Luca Spataro, 2018. "The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Ethical Factor in Giuseppe Toniolo’s Thought," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(1), pages 105-119, November.
    9. Max Albert & Andreas Hildenbrand, 2016. "Industrial Organization and Experimental Economics: How to Learn from Laboratory Experiments," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 135-156, August.
    10. Müller, Wieland & Tan, Fangfang, 2013. "Who acts more like a game theorist? Group and individual play in a sequential market game and the effect of the time horizon," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 658-674.
    11. Roland Königsgruber & Stefan Palan, 2015. "Earnings management and participation in accounting standard-setting," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(1), pages 31-52, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jinsec:v:6:y:2010:i:04:p:445-475_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.