IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gra/wpaper/09-08.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Third-party Punishment is more effective on Women: Experimental Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Pablo Brañas-Garza

    (Department of Economic Theory and Economic History, University of Granada.)

  • Stefania Ottone

    (Department of Economics, University of Milano-Bicocca)

Abstract

Existing experimental studies mainly focus on motivations and choices of thirdparty punishers, but only few of them detect sanction efficacy contradictory results. Our paper wants to shed light on this point. In particular, we want to detect whether the threat of being punished for unfair actions is credible and affects subjects’ choices thus, making it rational to behave fairly. To disentangle the effect of expected punishment on behaviour, we implement in the lab two experimental games - the standard Dictator Game, that is used as baseline, and the Third-Party Punishment Game that incorporates a third player who observes and may punish the Dictator. The idea is that, if the Dictator in treatment TPP believes punishment is a credible threat, s/he may decide to change her/his behaviour, that is, to behave generously in order to avoid sanctions. We find a clear gender bias: women reacted to the punishment threat by increasing their transfer to the Recipient, while men did exactly the opposite.

Suggested Citation

  • Pablo Brañas-Garza & Stefania Ottone, 2009. "Third-party Punishment is more effective on Women: Experimental Evidence," ThE Papers 09/08, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
  • Handle: RePEc:gra:wpaper:09/08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ugr.es/~teoriahe/RePEc/gra/wpaper/thepapers09_08.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Helen Bernhard & Urs Fischbacher & Ernst Fehr, 2006. "Parochial altruism in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 442(7105), pages 912-915, August.
    2. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    3. Joop Hartog & Ada Ferrer‐i‐Carbonell & Nicole Jonker, 2002. "Linking Measured Risk Aversion to Individual Characteristics," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(1), pages 3-26.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David & Peterle, Emmanuel, 2018. "Discrimination as favoritism: The private benefits and social costs of in-group favoritism in an experimental labor market," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 220-236.
    2. Paetzel, Fabian & Sausgruber, Rupert, 2018. "Cognitive ability and in-group bias: An experimental study," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 280-292.
    3. Rémi Suchon & Marie Claire Villeval, 2017. "Does upward mobility harm trust?," Post-Print halshs-01659021, HAL.
    4. Leibbrandt, Andreas & López-Pérez, Raúl, 2012. "An exploration of third and second party punishment in ten simple games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 753-766.
    5. Ke, Changxia & Konrad, Kai A. & Morath, Florian, 2013. "Brothers in arms – An experiment on the alliance puzzle," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 61-76.
    6. Doerrenberg, Philipp & Duncan, Denvil & Zeppenfeld, Christopher, 2015. "Circumstantial risk: Impact of future tax evasion and labor supply opportunities on risk exposure," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 85-100.
    7. Benistant, Julien & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2019. "Unethical behavior and group identity in contests," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 128-155.
    8. Lewisch Peter G. & Ottone Stefania & Ponzano Ferruccio, 2011. "Free-Riding on Altruistic Punishment? An Experimental Comparison of Third-Party Punishment in a Stand-Alone and in an In-Group Environment," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 161-190, June.
    9. Bicskei, Marianna & Lankau, Matthias & Bizer, Kilian, 2016. "Negative reciprocity and its relation to anger-like emotions in identity-homogeneous and -heterogeneous groups," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 17-34.
    10. Reuben, Ernesto & van Winden, Frans, 2008. "Social ties and coordination on negative reciprocity: The role of affect," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 34-53, February.
    11. Deffains, Bruno & Espinosa, Romain & Fluet, Claude, 2019. "Laws and norms: Experimental evidence with liability rules," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    12. Nie, Zihan & Yang, Xiaojun & Tu, Qin, 2020. "Resource scarcity and cooperation: Evidence from a gravity irrigation system in China," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    13. Wang, Tse-Min & Heine, Florian & van Witteloostuijn, Arjen, 2023. "Pro-social risk-taking and intergroup conflict: A volunteer's dilemma experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 363-379.
    14. Francesco Fallucchi & Enrique Fatas & Felix Kölle & Ori Weisel, 2021. "Not all group members are created equal: heterogeneous abilities in inter-group contests," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(2), pages 669-697, June.
    15. Herbst, Luisa & Konrad, Kai A. & Morath, Florian, 2015. "Endogenous group formation in experimental contests," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 163-189.
    16. Majerczyk, Michael & Sheremeta, Roman & Tian, Yu, 2019. "Adding tournament to tournament: Combining between-team and within-team incentives," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-11.
    17. Aidin Hajikhameneh & Erik O. Kimbrough, 2019. "Individualism, collectivism, and trade," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 294-324, June.
    18. Hugh Jones, David & Leroch, Martin A, 2011. "Reciprocity towards Groups," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 52, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    19. repec:dgr:uvatin:20040098 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Rainer Michael Rilke, 2017. "On the duty to give (and not to take): An experiment on moralistic punishment," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 87(9), pages 1129-1150, December.
    21. Lilia Zhurakhovska, 2014. "Strategic Trustworthiness via Unstrategic Third-party Reward – An Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2014_06, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, revised Jan 2017.

    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:gra:wpaper:09/08. 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: Angel Solano Garcia. (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dtugres.html .

    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.