IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpg/wpaper/2018_15.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Gain-Loss Framing in Interdependent Choice

Author

Listed:
  • Susann Fiedler

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods)

  • Adrian Hillenbrand

    (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods)

Abstract

Framing influences choice. However, little is known about the underlying mechanisms behind framing effects. We study gain-loss framing in binary modified dictator games. Subjects choose the selfish option more often in the loss frame compared to the gain frame. Recording visual fixations with eye-tracking, we find that dictators focus more on their own outcomes when facing losses. This suggests that losses to the own outcome are weighted more than losses to another player.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpg:wpaper:2018_15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.coll.mpg.de/pdf_dat/2018_15online.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.
    2. Armenak Antinyan, 2014. "Loss and Other-Regarding Preferences: Evidence From Dictator Game," Working Papers 03, Venice School of Management - Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    3. Arieli, Amos & Ben-Ami, Yaniv & Rubinstein, Ariel, 2009. "Fairness Motivations and Procedures of Choice between Lotteries as Revealed through Eye Movements," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275720, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
    4. Dufwenberg, Martin & Gächter, Simon & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike, 2011. "The framing of games and the psychology of play," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 459-478.
    5. Engel, Christoph & Rand, David G., 2014. "What does “clean” really mean? The implicit framing of decontextualized experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 386-389.
    6. Krucien, Nicolas & Ryan, Mandy & Hermens, Frouke, 2017. "Visual attention in multi-attributes choices: What can eye-tracking tell us?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 251-267.
    7. Joanna N. Lahey & Douglas Oxley, 2016. "The Power of Eye Tracking in Economics Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 309-313, May.
    8. Ernst Fehr & Antonio Rangel, 2011. "Neuroeconomic Foundations of Economic Choice--Recent Advances," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(4), pages 3-30, Fall.
    9. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    10. Ian Krajbich & Bastiaan Oud & Ernst Fehr, 2014. "Benefits of Neuroeconomic Modeling: New Policy Interventions and Predictors of Preference," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(5), pages 501-506, May.
    11. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, March.
    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. Qingzhou Sun & Haozhi Guo & Jiarui Wang & Jing Zhang & Chengming Jiang & Yongfang Liu, 2021. "Differences in cooperation between social dilemmas of gain and loss," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(6), pages 1506-1524, November.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1506-1524 is not listed 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. Fiedler, Susann & Hillenbrand, Adrian, 2020. "Gain-loss framing in interdependent choice," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 232-251.
    2. Jeffrey E. Harris & Mariana Gerstenblüth & Patricia Triunfo, 2018. "Smokers’ Rational Lexicographic Preferences for Cigarette Package Warnings: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Eye Tracking," Documentos de Trabajo (working papers) 0218, Department of Economics - dECON.
    3. Wang, Xinghua & Navarro-Martinez, Daniel, 2023. "Increasing the external validity of social preference games by reducing measurement error," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 261-285.
    4. Stephanie M. Smith & Ian Krajbich & Ryan Webb, 2019. "Estimating the dynamic role of attention via random utility," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 97-111, August.
    5. Alekseev, Aleksandr & Alm, James & Sadiraj, Vjollca & Sjoquist, David L., 2021. "Experiments on the fly," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 288-305.
    6. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Susan Xu Tang, 2023. "Morally monotonic choice in public good games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(3), pages 697-725, July.
    7. Thunström, Linda, 2019. "Preferences for fairness over losses," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    8. Antonio Filippin & Manuela Raimondi, 2018. "The Patron Game: the Individual Provision of a Public Good," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-20, June.
    9. Simon Bartke & Steven J. Bosworth & Dennis J. Snower & Gabriele Chierchia, 2019. "Motives and comprehension in a public goods game with induced emotions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(2), pages 205-238, March.
    10. Breitmoser, Yves & Vorjohann, Pauline, 2018. "Welfare-Based Altruism," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 89, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    11. Clithero, John A., 2018. "Response times in economics: Looking through the lens of sequential sampling models," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-86.
    12. Breuer, Janice Boucher & McDermott, John, 2012. "Culture, caution, and trust," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 15-23.
    13. Breitmoser, Yves & Vorjohann, Pauline, 2022. "Fairness-based Altruism," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 666, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    14. Ek, Claes, 2017. "Some causes are more equal than others? The effect of similarity on substitution in charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 45-62.
    15. Dean Karlan & John A. List, 2007. "Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1774-1793, December.
    16. Huck, Steffen & Lünser, Gabriele & Spitzer, Florian & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2016. "Medical insurance and free choice of physician shape patient overtreatment: A laboratory experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 78-105.
    17. Stephen Leider & Markus M. Möbius & Tanya Rosenblat & Quoc-Anh Do, 2010. "What Do We Expect from Our Friends?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 8(1), pages 120-138, March.
    18. Korenok, Oleg & Millner, Edward L. & Razzolini, Laura, 2013. "Impure altruism in dictators' giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 1-8.
    19. Andreas Lange & Andrew Stocking, 2009. "Charitable Memberships, Volunteering, and Discounts: Evidence from a Large-Scale Online Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 14941, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Anna Louisa Merkel & Johannes Lohse, 2019. "Is fairness intuitive? An experiment accounting for subjective utility differences under time pressure," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 24-50, 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:mpg:wpaper:2018_15. 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: Marc Martin (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mppggde.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.