Experimental Economics

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 819–841 | Cite as

Procedural fairness in lotteries assigning initial roles in a dynamic setting

Original Paper

Abstract

We extend the study of procedural fairness in three new directions. Firstly, we focus on lotteries determining the initial roles in a two-person game. One of the roles carries a potential advantage over the other. All the experimental literature has thus far focused on lotteries determining the final payoffs of a game. Secondly, we modify procedural fairness in a dynamic—i.e. over several repetitions of a game—as well as in a static—i.e. within a single game-sense. Thirdly, we analyse whether assigning individuals a minimal chance of achieving an advantaged position is enough to make them willing to accept substantially more inequality. We find that procedural fairness matters under all of these accounts. Individuals clearly respond to the degree of fairness in assigning initial roles, appraise contexts that are dynamically fair more positively than contexts that are not, and are generally more willing to accept unequal outcomes when they are granted a minimal opportunity to acquire the advantaged position. Unexpectedly, granting full equality of opportunity does not lead to the highest efficiency.

Keywords

Procedural fairness Equality of opportunity Experiments 

JEL Classification

C92 C78 D63 

Supplementary material

10683_2015_9469_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 1271 KB)

References

  1. Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2005). Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5–6), 897–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anand, P. (2001). Procedural fairness in economic and social choice: Evidence from a survey of voters. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22(2), 247–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreozzi, L., Ploner, M., & Soraperra, I. (2013). Justice among strangers. On altruism, inequality aversion and fairness. Working paper No. 1304, CEEL, Trento University.Google Scholar
  4. Armantier, O. (2006). Do wealth differences affect fairness considerations? International Economic Review, 47(2), 391–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, A., & Miller, L. (2009). Promoting justice by treating people unequally: An experimental study. Experimental Economics, 12(4), 437–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bewley, T. (1999). Why wages don’t fall during a recession. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Belief in the just world and redistributive politics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 699–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Binmore, K., Morgan, P., Shaked, A., & Sutton, J. (1991). Do people exploit their bargaining power? An experimental study. Games and Economic Behavior, 3, 295–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolton, G. E., Brandts, J., & Ockenfels, A. (2005). Fair procedures: Evidence from games involving lotteries. Economic Journal, 115(506), 1054–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bolton, G., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). A theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. American Economic Review, 90, 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buchan, N., Croson, R., & Johnson, E. (2004). When do fair beliefs influence bargaining behavior? Experimental bargaining in Japan and the United States. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burrows, P., & Loomes, G. (1994). The impact of fairness on bargaining. Empirical Economics, 19(2), 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cappelen, A. W., Konow, J., Sorensen, E. O., & Tungodden, B. (2013). Just luck: An experimental study of risk-taking and fairness. American Economic Review, 103(4), 1398–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cappelen, A., Drange, A., Sørensen, E., & Tungodden, B. (2007). The pluralism of fairness ideals: An experimental approach. American Economic Review, 97(3), 818–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 817–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Corneo, G., & Gruner, H. M. (2002). Individual preferences for political redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 83, 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diamond, P. (1967). Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparison of utility: A comment. Journal of Political Economy, 75(5), 765–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elster, J. (1989). Solomonic judgements: Studies in the limitation of rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Erkal, N., Gangadharan, L., & Nikiforakis, N. (2010). Relative earnings and giving in a real-effort experiment. American Economic Review, 101(7), 3330–3348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 102, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fong, C. (2001). Social preferences, self-interest, and the demand for redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 82(2), 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2005). Beyond outcomes, measuring procedural utility. Oxford Economic Papers, 57, 90–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gill, D., Prowse, V., Vlassopoulos, M. (2012). Cheating in the workplace: An experimental study of the impact of bonuses and productivity. Available at SSRN 2109698.Google Scholar
  25. Guth, W., & Tietz, R. (1986). Auctioning ulitmatum bargaining positions—How to act rational if decisions are unacceptable? In R. W. Scholz (Ed.), Current issues in West German decision research (pp. 173–185). Frankfurt: Verlag Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  26. Hammond, P. (1988). Consequentialist foundations for expected utility. Theory and Decision, 25(1), 25–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Handgraaf, M., Van Dijk, E., Vermunt, R., Wilke, H., & De Dreu, C. (2008). Less power or powerless? Egocentric empathy gaps and the irony of having little versus no power in social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1136–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hargreaves-Heap, S., & Varoufakis, Y. (2002). Some experimental evidence on the evolution of discrimination, co-operation and perceptions of fairness. Economic Journal, 112, 679–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoffman, E., & Spitzer, M. L. (1985). Entitlements, rights and fairness: An experimental examination of subjects’ concepts of distributive justice. Journal of Legal Studies, 14, 259–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. (1994). Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7(3), 346–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karni, E., Salmon, T., & Sopher, B. (2008). Individual sense of fairness: An experimental study. Experimental Economics, 11(2), 174–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Karni, E., & Safra, Z. (2002). Individual sense of justice: A utility representation. Econometrica, 70, 263–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keren, G., & Teigen, K. (2010). Decisions by coin toss: Inappropriate but fair. Judgement and Decision Making, 5(2), 83–101.Google Scholar
  35. Konow, J. (2003). Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), 1188–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krawczyk, M. (2011). A model of procedural and distributive fairness. Theory and Decision, 70(1), 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Krawczyk, M. (2010). A glimpse through the veil of ignorance: Equality of opportunity and support for redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krawczyk, M., & Le Lec, F. (2010). Give me a chance! An experiment in social decision under risk. Journal of Experimental Economics, 13, 500–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory?. Detroit: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Machina, M. (1989). Dynamic consistency and non-expected utility models of choice under uncertainty. Journal of Economic Literature, 27(4), 1622–1668.Google Scholar
  41. Nozick, R. (1994). The nature of rationality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & van de Kuilen, G. (2004). Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 7(2), 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (rev ed.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
  44. Schmitt, P. M. (2004). On perceptions of fairness: The role of valuations, outside options, and information in ultimatum bargaining games. Experimental Economics, 7(1), 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schurter, K., & Wilson, B. J. (2009). Justice and fairness in the dictator game. Southern Economic Journal, 76(1), 130–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Suleiman, R. (1996). Expectations and fairness in a modified UG. Journal of Economic Psychology, 17, 531–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Trautmann, S., & van de Kuilen, G. (2014). Process fairness, outcome fairness, and dynamic consistency: Experimental evidence, mimeo.Google Scholar
  49. Trautmann, S., & Wakker, P. (2010). Process fairness and dynamic consistency. Economics Letters, 109(3), 187–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Trautmann, S. T. (2009). A tractable model of process fairness under risk. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(5), 803–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Woolridge, J. M. (2002). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gianluca Grimalda
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Anirban Kar
    • 4
  • Eugenio Proto
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
  1. 1.Universitat Jaume I of CastellóCastelló de la PlanaSpain
  2. 2.Institute for the World EconomyKielGermany
  3. 3.Centre for the Study of Global Cooperation ResearchUniversity of Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany
  4. 4.Delhi School of EconomicsUniversity of DelhiNew DelhiIndia
  5. 5.University of WarwickCoventryUK
  6. 6.IZABonnGermany
  7. 7.CESifoMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations