Experimental Economics

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 589–603 | Cite as

Are social preferences related to market performance?

Article

Abstract

This paper combines laboratory with field data from professional sellers to study whether social preferences are related to performance in open-air markets. The data show that sellers who are more pro-social in a laboratory experiment are also more successful in natural markets: They achieve higher prices for similar quality, have superior trade relations and better abilities to signal trustworthiness to buyers. These findings suggest that social preferences play a significant role for outcomes in natural markets.

Keywords

Social preferences Market performance External validity Quality misrepresentation Open-air markets 

JEL Classification

C91 C93 D49 

References

  1. Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving? Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barr, A., Ensminger, J., & Johnson, J. (2009). Social networks and trust in cross-cultural economic experiments. In K. Cook, M. Levi, & R. Hardin (Eds.), Whom can we trust? New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Google Scholar
  3. Barr, A., & Serneels, P. (2009). Reciprocity in the workplace. Experimental Economics, 12, 99–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolton, G., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: a theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review, 90(1), 166–193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowles, S., Gintis, H., & Osborne, M. (2001). The determinants of earnings: a behavioral approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 39(4), 1137–1176. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, M., Falk, A., & Fehr, E. (2005). Relational contracts and the nature of market interaction. Econometrica, 72(3), 747–780. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, J., & Seki, E. (2010). Do social preferences increase productivity? Field experimental evidence from fishermen in Toyama Bay. Economic Inquiry, 49(2), 612–630. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 817–869. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox, J. C., Friedman, D., & Gjerstad, S. (2007). A tractable model of reciprocity and fairness. Games and Economic Behavior, 59, 17–45. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2009). Homo reciprocans: survey evidence on behavioral outcomes. Economic Journal, 536, 592–612. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dufwenberg, M., & Kirchsteiger, G. (2004). A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 47(2), 268–298. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2), 293–315. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Cooperation and punishment in public goods experiments. American Economic Review, 90, 980–994. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fehr, E., Götte, L., & Zehnder, C. (2009). A behavioral approach to the labor market: the role of fairness concerns. Annual Review of Economics, 1, 355–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fehr, E., Kirchsteiger, G., & Riedl, A. (1993). Does fairness prevent market clearing? An experimental investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(2), 437–459. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fehr, E., & Leibbrandt, A. (2011). A field study on cooperativeness and impatience in the tragedy of the commons. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 1144–1155. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3, 367–388. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jin, G., & Kato, A. (2006). Price, quality, and reputation: evidence from an online field experiment. The Rand Journal of Economics, 37(4), 983–1005. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Karlan, D. (2005). Using experimental economics to measure social capital and predict financial decisions. American Economic Review, 95(5), 1688–1699. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. List, J. (2006). The behavioralist meets the market: measuring social preferences and reputation effects in actual transactions. Journal of Political Economy, 114(51), 1–37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. López-Pérez, R. (2008). Aversion to norm-breaking: a model. Games and Economic Behavior, 64, 237–267. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. American Economic Review, 83(5), 1281–1302. Google Scholar
  25. Roth, A. (1995). Bargaining experiments. In J. Kagel & A. Roth (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  26. Sobel, J. (2005). Interdependent preferences and reciprocity. Journal of Economic Literature, XLIII, 392–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Weisbuch, G., Kirman, A., & Herreiner, D. (2000). Market organisation and trading relationships. Economic Journal, 110, 411–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations