IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cla/levarc/814577000000000219.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Fairness Motivations and Procedures of Choice between Lotteries as Revealed through Eye Movements

Author

Listed:
  • Amos Arieli
  • Yaniv Ben-Ami
  • Ariel Rubinstein

Abstract

Eye tracking is used to investigate decision makers’ motivations and procedures in choice problems. Patterns of eye movements in problems where the deliberation process is easily discernable are used to understand the deliberation in other problems. We find that in problems which involve the distribution of income between the participant and another individual, participants who behave selfishly nevertheless take into consideration the size of the payment to the other person. In problems that involve choice between two simple lotteries, eye movements indicate that many participants based their decision on a comparison of prizes and probabilities rather than making an expected utility calculation.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Amos Arieli & Yaniv Ben-Ami & Ariel Rubinstein, 2009. "Fairness Motivations and Procedures of Choice between Lotteries as Revealed through Eye Movements," Levine's Working Paper Archive 814577000000000219, David K. Levine.
    • Handle: RePEc:cla:levarc:814577000000000219
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.dklevine.com/archive/refs4814577000000000219.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Michael Naef & Klaus M. Schmidt, 2006. "Inequality Aversion, Efficiency, and Maximin Preferences in Simple Distribution Experiments: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(5), pages 1912-1917, December.
    2. Glimcher, Paul W. & Dorris, Michael C. & Bayer, Hannah M., 2005. "Physiological utility theory and the neuroeconomics of choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 213-256, August.
    3. Caplin, Andrew & Schotter, Andrew, 2008. "The Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics: A Handbook," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195328318.
    4. Joseph Tao-yi Wang & Michael Spezio & Colin F. Camerer, 2006. "Pinocchio's Pupil: Using Eyetracking and Pupil Dilation to Understand Truth-telling and Deception in Games," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000000042, UCLA Department of Economics.
    5. Bonanno, Giacomo & List, Christian & Tungodden, Bertil & Vallentyne, Peter, 2008. "Introduction To The Special Issue Of Economics And Philosophy On Neuroeconomics," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 301-302, November.
    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. Susann Fiedler & Adrian Hillenbrand, 2018. "Gain-Loss Framing in Interdependent Choice," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2018_15, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    2. Batrancea Larissa-Margareta & Nichita Ramona-Anca, 2012. "A Neuroeconomic Approach Of Tax Behavior," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1(1), pages 649-654, July.
    3. Fiedler, Susann & Hillenbrand, Adrian, 2020. "Gain-loss framing in interdependent choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 232-251.
    4. Antonio Cabrales & José-Ramón Uriarte, 2013. "Doubts and equilibria," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 783-810, September.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:3:p:217-236 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Dan Rigby & Caroline Vass & Katherine Payne, 2020. "Opening the ‘Black Box’: An Overview of Methods to Investigate the Decision-Making Process in Choice-Based Surveys," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 13(1), pages 31-41, February.
    7. Carrillo, Juan & Camerer, Colin & Brocas, Isabelle & Wang, Stephanie W., 2009. "Measuring attention and strategic behavior in games with private information," CEPR Discussion Papers 7529, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. David J. Butler & Ganna Pogrebna, 2018. "Predictably intransitive preferences," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(3), pages 217-236, May.

    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. B. Douglas Bernheim, 2009. "On the Potential of Neuroeconomics: A Critical (but Hopeful) Appraisal," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 1-41, August.
    2. Daniel Serra, 2019. "La neuroéconomie en question : débats et controverses," Working Papers halshs-02160911, HAL.
    3. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    4. Schnellenbach, Jan, 2012. "Nudges and norms: On the political economy of soft paternalism," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 266-277.
    5. Till Grüne-Yanoff, 2012. "Old wine in new casks: libertarian paternalism still violates liberal principles," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 38(4), pages 635-645, April.
    6. Faruk Gul & Wolfgang Pesendorfer, 2009. "A Comment on Bernheim's Appraisal of Neuroeconomics," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 42-47, August.
    7. Nicolas Jacquemet & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2014. "What drives failure to maximize payoffs in the lab? A test of the inequality aversion hypothesis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 18(4), pages 243-264, December.
    8. Matthias Sutter & Francesco Feri & Martin G. Kocher & Peter Martinsson & Katarina Nordblom & Daniela Rützler, 2010. "Social preferences in childhood and adolescence - A large-scale experiment," Working Papers 2010-13, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    9. Tim Krieger & Christine Meemann & Stefan Traub, 2022. "Inequality, Life Expectancy, and the Intragenerational Redistribution Puzzle - Some Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9677, CESifo.
    10. Piasenti, Stefano & Valente, Marica & van Veldhuizen, Roel & Pfeifer, Gregor, 2023. "Does Unfairness Hurt Women? The Effects of Losing Unfair Competitions," IZA Discussion Papers 16324, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. Gerasimou, Georgios, 2010. "Rational indecisive choice," MPRA Paper 25481, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Ariel Rubinstein, 2005. "Discussion of 'BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS'," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000539, UCLA Department of Economics.
    13. Maite D. Laméris & Richard Jong-A-Pin & Rasmus Wiese, 2018. "An Experimental Test of the Validity of Survey-Measured Political Ideology," CESifo Working Paper Series 7139, CESifo.
    14. Gharad Bryan & Dean Karlan & Scott Nelson, 2009. "Commitment Contracts," Working Papers 980, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    15. Keigo Kameda & Miho Sato, 2017. "Distributional Preference in Japan," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 394-408, September.
    16. Pamela Jakiela, 2013. "Equity vs. efficiency vs. self-interest: on the use of dictator games to measure distributional preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(2), pages 208-221, June.
    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. Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Müller, Daniel, 2020. "Social preferences and political attitudes: An online experiment on a large heterogeneous sample," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    19. S. Bortolotti & M. Casari & F. Pancotto, 2013. "Norms of Punishment in the General Population," Working Papers wp898, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    20. Giovanna Devetag & Sibilla Guida & Luca Polonio, 2016. "An eye-tracking study of feature-based choice in one-shot games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 177-201, March.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cla:levarc:814577000000000219. 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: David K. Levine (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.dklevine.com/ .

    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.