IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0235443.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Maxims nudge equitable or efficient choices in a Trade-Off Game

Author

Listed:
  • Long Huang
  • Wansheng Lei
  • Fuming Xu
  • Hairong Liu
  • Liang Yu
  • Fujun Shi
  • Lei Wang

Abstract

The core problem in the distribution dilemma is the trade-off between equity and efficiency. With the development of socio-economic conditions, the optimal decision changes between equitable and efficient options. The methods for nudging decision-makers to make optimal decisions without changing the event are extremely important. This study used two laboratory behavior experiments to explore the impact of maxim information on the trade-off between equity and efficiency. The study explores whether stake levels and division schemes affect the nudging effect of the maxim in a Trade-Off Game (TOG). We found that participants were affected by maxim information in decision-making scenarios, and participants showed different equity preferences as the maxim information changed, without relevance of the stake level. Additionally, the nudging effect of the maxim only exists under the condition that the distributor's interests is not affected.

Suggested Citation

  • Long Huang & Wansheng Lei & Fuming Xu & Hairong Liu & Liang Yu & Fujun Shi & Lei Wang, 2020. "Maxims nudge equitable or efficient choices in a Trade-Off Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-13, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0235443
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235443
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235443
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235443&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0235443?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard H. Thaler & Shlomo Benartzi, 2004. "Save More Tomorrow (TM): Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(S1), pages 164-187, February.
    2. Laura C. Haynes & Donald P. Green & Rory Gallagher & Peter John & David J. Torgerson, 2013. "Collection of Delinquent Fines: An Adaptive Randomized Trial to Assess the Effectiveness of Alternative Text Messages," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 718-730, September.
    3. Forsythe Robert & Horowitz Joel L. & Savin N. E. & Sefton Martin, 1994. "Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 347-369, May.
    4. Capraro, Valerio & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael & Ruiz-Martos, Maria J., 2020. "Preferences for efficiency, rather than preferences for morality, drive cooperation in the one-shot Stag-Hunt game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    5. El Harbi, Sana & Bekir, Insaf & Grolleau, Gilles & Sutan, Angela, 2015. "Efficiency, equality, positionality: What do people maximize? Experimental vs. hypothetical evidence from Tunisia," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 77-84.
    6. Steffen Andersen & Seda Ertac & Uri Gneezy & Moshe Hoffman & John A. List, 2011. "Stakes Matter in Ultimatum Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 3427-3439, December.
    7. Erin L. Krupka & Roberto A. Weber, 2013. "Identifying Social Norms Using Coordination Games: Why Does Dictator Game Sharing Vary?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 495-524, June.
    8. Nick Obradovich & Scott M. Guenther, 2016. "Collective responsibility amplifies mitigation behaviors," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 307-319, July.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:309-317 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    11. Ferraro, Paul J. & Miranda, Juan José, 2013. "Heterogeneous treatment effects and mechanisms in information-based environmental policies: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 356-379.
    12. Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein, 2023. "Libertarian paternalism," Chapters, in: Cass R. Sunstein & Lucia A. Reisch (ed.), Research Handbook on Nudges and Society, chapter 1, pages 10-16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Krupka, Erin & Weber, Roberto A., 2009. "The focusing and informational effects of norms on pro-social behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 307-320, June.
    14. Carpenter, Jeffrey & Verhoogen, Eric & Burks, Stephen, 2005. "The effect of stakes in distribution experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 86(3), pages 393-398, March.
    15. Hallsworth, Michael & List, John A. & Metcalfe, Robert D. & Vlaev, Ivo, 2017. "The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 14-31.
    16. Robert Slonim & Alvin E. Roth, 1998. "Learning in High Stakes Ultimatum Games: An Experiment in the Slovak Republic," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 569-596, May.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:1:p:99-111 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. repec:feb:framed:0088 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Valerio Capraro & Roberto Di Paolo & Matjaz Perc & Veronica Pizziol, 2024. "Language-based game theory in the age of artificial intelligence," Papers 2403.08944, arXiv.org.
    2. Valerio Capraro, 2024. "Human behaviour through a LENS: How Linguistic content triggers Emotions and Norms and determines Strategy choices," Papers 2403.15293, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    2. Weimann Joachim, 2015. "Die Rolle von Verhaltensökonomik und experimenteller Forschung in Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Politikberatung," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 16(3), pages 231-252, October.
    3. Thunström, Linda, 2019. "Preferences for fairness over losses," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    4. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:309-317 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Valerio Capraro & Andrea Vanzo, 2019. "The power of moral words: Loaded language generates framing effects in the extreme dictator game," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 309-317, May.
    6. Leibbrandt, Andreas & Maitra, Pushkar & Neelim, Ananta, 2015. "On the redistribution of wealth in a developing country: Experimental evidence on stake and framing effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 360-371.
    7. Eugen Dimant, 2020. "Hate Trumps Love: The Impact of Political Polarization on Social Preferences," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 029, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    8. Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo & Guarnieri, Pietro & Spadoni, Lorenzo, 2023. "Delaying and motivating decisions in the (Bully) dictator game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    9. Andreas Leibbrandt & John Lynham, 2018. "Does the paradox of plenty exist? Experimental evidence on the curse of resource abundance," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(2), pages 337-354, June.
    10. Akdeniz, Aslıhan & van Veelen, Matthijs, 2023. "Evolution and the ultimatum game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 570-612.
    11. Zhang, Yanling & Chen, Xiaojie & Liu, Aizhi & Sun, Changyin, 2018. "The effect of the stake size on the evolution of fairness," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 321(C), pages 641-653.
    12. Gary Bolton & Eugen Dimant & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "When a Nudge Backfires. Using Observation with Social and Economic Incentives to Promote Pro-Social Behavior," PPE Working Papers 0017, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    13. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Mahmud, Minhaj & Martinsson, Peter, 2005. "Does stake size matter in trust games?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 365-369, September.
    14. Björn Bartling & Vanessa Valero & Roberto A. Weber, 2018. "Is Social Responsibility a Normal Good?," CESifo Working Paper Series 7263, CESifo.
    15. Barmettler, Franziska & Fehr, Ernst & Zehnder, Christian, 2012. "Big experimenter is watching you! Anonymity and prosocial behavior in the laboratory," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 17-34.
    16. El Harbi, Sana & Bekir, Insaf & Grolleau, Gilles & Sutan, Angela, 2015. "Efficiency, equality, positionality: What do people maximize? Experimental vs. hypothetical evidence from Tunisia," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 77-84.
    17. Naef, Michael & Schupp, Jürgen, 2009. "Measuring Trust: Experiments and Surveys in Contrast and Combination," IZA Discussion Papers 4087, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Bicchieri, Cristina & Dimant, Eugen & Xiao, Erte, 2021. "Deviant or wrong? The effects of norm information on the efficacy of punishment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 188(C), pages 209-235.
    19. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:2:p:182-192 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Valerio Capraro & Hélène Barcelo, 2021. "Punishing defectors and rewarding cooperators: Do people discriminate between genders?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 19-32, September.
    22. Julie Novakova & Jaroslav Flegr, 2013. "How Much Is Our Fairness Worth? The Effect of Raising Stakes on Offers by Proposers and Minimum Acceptable Offers in Dictator and Ultimatum Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-9, April.

    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:plo:pone00:0235443. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.