IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oxf/wpaper/9940.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Money Burning and Stealing in the Laboratory: How Conflicting Ideologies Emerge

Author

Listed:
  • Zizzo, D.J.

Abstract

Three experiments on utility interdependence are discussed. Subjects receive money by betting and possibly by arbitrary assignments. They can then pay to reduce and, possibly, redistribute the steal money; in one case, only the decisions of a randomly determined dictator are implemented. The behavior of 80% of burners and redistributors was rank egalitarian. However, arbitrarily advantaged and disadvantaged subjects developed conflicting views of desert: arbitrarily disadvantaged subjects targeted arbitrarily assigned money; arbitrarily advantaged subjects did not care about how money was gained, and, if stealing was allowed, were twice as aggressive against earned money than against money assigned arbitrarily.

Suggested Citation

  • Zizzo, D.J., 2000. "Money Burning and Stealing in the Laboratory: How Conflicting Ideologies Emerge," Economics Series Working Papers 9940, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:oxf:wpaper:9940
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoffman Elizabeth & McCabe Kevin & Shachat Keith & Smith Vernon, 1994. "Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 346-380, November.
    2. Gary Charness & Matthew Rabin, 1999. "Social preferences: Some simple tests and a new model," Economics Working Papers 441, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, revised Jan 2000.
    3. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    4. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    5. Babcock, Linda, et al, 1995. "Biased Judgments of Fairness in Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1337-1343, December.
    6. R. Cookson, 2000. "Framing Effects in Public Goods Experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(1), pages 55-79, June.
    7. Croson, Rachel T. A., 2000. "Thinking like a game theorist: factors affecting the frequency of equilibrium play," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 299-314, March.
    8. Charness, Gary & Rabin, Matthew, 2000. "Social Preferences: Some Simple Tests and a New Model," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt46j0d6hb, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    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. Daniel J. Zizzo & Andrew J. Oswald, 2001. "Are People Willing to Pay to Reduce Others'Incomes?," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 63-64, pages 39-65.

    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. Gary Bolton & Axel Ockenfels, 2005. "A stress test of fairness measures in models of social utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 25(4), pages 957-982, June.
    2. Bergh, Andreas, 2008. "A critical note on the theory of inequity aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1789-1796, October.
    3. Tyran, Jean-Robert & Sausgruber, Rupert, 2006. "A little fairness may induce a lot of redistribution in democracy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 469-485, February.
    4. Daniel J. Zizzo & Andrew J. Oswald, 2001. "Are People Willing to Pay to Reduce Others'Incomes?," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 63-64, pages 39-65.
    5. Hal R. Arkes & John H. Kagel & Dimitry Mezhvinsky, 2017. "Effects of a Management–Labor Context and Team Play on Ultimatum Game Outcomes," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 83(4), pages 993-1011, April.
    6. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, "undated". "Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity - Evidence and Economic Applications," IEW - Working Papers 075, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    7. Cooper, David J. & Van Huyck, John B., 2003. "Evidence on the equivalence of the strategic and extensive form representation of games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 290-308, June.
    8. Hellberg-Bahr, Anneke & Spiller, Achim, 2012. "How to Treat Farmers Fairly? Results of a Farmer Survey," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(3), pages 1-11, September.
    9. James Andreoni & Emily Blanchard, 2006. "Testing subgame perfection apart from fairness in ultimatum games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(4), pages 307-321, December.
    10. repec:clg:wpaper:2008-22 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Timothy Cason & Tatsuyoshi Saijo & Takehiko Yamato, 2002. "Voluntary Participation and Spite in Public Good Provision Experiments: An International Comparison," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(2), pages 133-153, October.
    12. Martin Brown & Armin Falk & Ernst Fehr, "undated". "Contractual Incompleteness and the Nature of Market Interactions," IEW - Working Papers 038, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    13. Guth, Werner & Kliemt, Hartmut & Ockenfels, Axel, 2003. "Fairness versus efficiency: An experimental study of (mutual) gift giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(4), pages 465-475, April.
    14. Kirchsteiger, Georg & Rigotti, Luca & Rustichini, Aldo, 2001. "Your Morals Are Your Moods," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt5fh525g8, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    15. Dinky Daruvala, 2009. "Would The Right Social Preference Model Please Stand Up!," Post-Print hal-00744366, HAL.
    16. Stanca, Luca & Bruni, Luigino & Corazzini, Luca, 2009. "Testing theories of reciprocity: Do motivations matter?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 233-245, August.
    17. Güth, W. & Sutter, M. & Verbon, H.A.A. & Weck-Hannemann, H., 2001. "Family Versus Public Solidarity : Theory and Experiment," Discussion Paper 2001-86, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    18. Luca Stanca, Luigino Bruni, Luca Corazzini, 2007. "Testing Theories of Reciprocity: Does Motivation Matter?," ISLA Working Papers 29, ISLA, Centre for research on Latin American Studies and Transition Economies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    19. MICHAEL R. CARTER & Marco Castillo, 2002. "The Economic Impacts of Altruism, Trust and Reciprocity: An Experimental Approach to Social Capital," Wisconsin-Madison Agricultural and Applied Economics Staff Papers 448, Wisconsin-Madison Agricultural and Applied Economics Department.
    20. Charness, Gary & Grosskopf, Brit, 2001. "Relative payoffs and happiness: an experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 301-328, July.
    21. Christoph Graf & Rudolf Vetschera & Yingchao Zhang, 2013. "Parameters of social preference functions: measurement and external validity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(3), pages 357-382, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    IDEOLOGY ; MONEY ; CONFLICTS;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:oxf:wpaper:9940. 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: Anne Pouliquen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfeixuk.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.