Synthese

, Volume 190, Issue 5, pp 909–922 | Cite as

Self-serving biases and public justifications in trust games

Article

Abstract

Often, when several norms are present and may be in conflict, individuals will display a self-serving bias, privileging the norm that best serves their interests. Xiao and Bicchieri (J Econ Psychol 31(3):456–470, 2010) tested the effects of inequality on reciprocating behavior in trust games and showed that—when inequality increases—reciprocity loses its appeal. They hypothesized that self-serving biases in choosing to privilege a particular social norm occur when the choice of that norm is publicly justifiable as reasonable, even if not optimal for one of the parties. In line with the literature on motivated reasoning, this justification should find some degree of support among third parties. The results of our experimental survey of third parties support the hypothesis that biases are not always unilateral selfish assessments. Instead, they occur when the choice to favor a particular norm is supported by a shared sense that it is a reasonable and justifiable choice.

Keywords

Social norms Trust game Self-serving bias Equality Reciprocity Public justification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bicchieri C. (2006) The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Bicchieri C., Chavez A. (2010) Behaving as expected: Public information and fairness norms. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 23(2): 161–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bicchieri, C., & Muldoon, R. (2011). Social norms. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-norms/.
  4. Bicchieri C., Xiao E. (2009) Do the right thing: But only if others do so. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 22: 191–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buhrmester M., Kwang T., Gosling S. D. (2011) Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(1): 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeScioli P., Kurzban R. (2009) The alliance hypothesis for human friendship. PloS ONE 4(6): e5802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fishbein M. (1967) A consideration of beliefs and their role in attitude measurement. In: Fishbein M. (Ed.) Readings in attitude theory and measurement. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Kunda Z. (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108: 480–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mercier H. (2011) What good is moral reasoning?. Mind & Society 10(2): 131–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mercier H., Sperber D. (2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2): 57–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Paolacci G., Chandler J., Ipeirotis P.G. (2010) Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making 5(5): 411–419Google Scholar
  12. Sanitioso R., Kunda Z., Fong G. T. (1990) Motivated recruitment of autobiographical memories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59(2): 229–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Snyder M., Kleck R. E., Strenta A., Mentzer S. J. (1979) Avoidance of the handicapped: An attributional ambiguity analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(12): 2297–2306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Valdesolo P., DeSteno D. (2008) The duality of virtue: Deconstructing the moral hypocrite. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44: 1334–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Xiao E., Bicchieri C. (2010) When equality trumps reciprocity. Journal of Economic Psychology 31(3): 456–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations