Advertisement

Mind & Society

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 235–256 | Cite as

The endogenous nature of the measurement of social preferences

  • John SmithEmail author
Article

Abstract

We present evidence against the standard assumptions that social preferences are stable and can be measured in a reliable, nonintrusive manner. We find evidence that measures of social preferences can affect subsequent behavior. Researchers often measure social preferences by posing dictator type allocation decisions. The social value orientation (SVO) is a particular sequence of dictator decisions. We vary the order in which the SVO and a larger stakes dictator game are presented. We also vary the form of the dictator game. In one study, we employ the standard dictator game, and in the other, we employ a nonstandard dictator game. With the standard dictator game, we find that prosocial subjects act even more prosocially when the SVO is administered first, whereas selfish subjects are unaffected by the order. With the nonstandard dictator game, we find evidence across all subjects that those who first receive the SVO are more generous in the dictator game but we do not find the effect among only the generous subjects. Across both dictator game forms, we find evidence that the subjects who are first given the SVO were more generous than subjects who are given the SVO last. We also find that this effect is stronger among the subjects with a perfectly consistent SVO measure. Although we cannot determine whether the order affects preferences or the measure of preferences, our results are incompatible with the assumptions that social preferences are stable and can be measured in a reliable, nonintrusive manner.

Keywords

Experimental economics Altruism Dictator game Social value orientation Order effects 

JEL Classification

C91 D64 Z13 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author thanks I-Ming Chiu, Hans Czap, Sean Duffy, Matt Miller, Jack Worrall, Tetsuji Yamada, and participants of the ESA conference in Washington DC and the IAREP/SABE conference in Halifax for helpful comments. This research was supported by Rutgers University Research Council Grant #202344.

References

  1. Andreoni J, Miller J (2002) Giving according to GARP: an experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica 70(2):737–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Au W, Kwong J (2004) Measurements and effects of social-value orientation in social dilemmas. In: Suleiman R, Budescu D, Fischer I, Messick D (eds) Contemp psychol res soc dilemmas. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 71–98Google Scholar
  3. Bednar J, Chen Y, Liu TX, Page S (2012) Behavioral spillovers and cognitive load in multiple games: an experimental study. Games Econ Behav 74(1):12–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bednar J, Page S (2007) Can game(s) theory explain culture? The emergence of cultural behavior within multiple games. Ration Soc 19(1):65–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blanco M, Engelmann D, Normann HT (2011) A within-subject analysis of other-regarding preferences. Games Econ Behav 72(2):321–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogaert S, Boone C, Declerck C (2008) Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: a review and conceptual model. Br J Soc Psychol 47:453–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bohnet I, Frey B (1999) Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games: comment. Am Econ Rev 89(1):335–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolton G, Katok E, Zwick R (1998) Dictator game giving: rules of fairness versus acts of kindness. Int J Game Theory 27(2):269–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgloh S, Dannenberg A, Aretz B (2010) On the construction of social preferences in lab experiments. Working paper, Centre for European Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowles S (1998) Endogenous preferences: the cultural consequences of markets and other economic institutions. J Econ Lit 36:75–111Google Scholar
  11. Bowling A, Windsor J (2008) The effects of question order and response-choice on self-rated health status in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA). J Epidemiol Community Health 62(1):81–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brosig J, Riechmann T, Weimann J (2007) Selfish in the end? An investigation of consistency and stability of individual behavior. Working paper, Otto Von Guericke University MagdeburgGoogle Scholar
  13. Buckley N, Chan K, Chowhan J, Mestelman S, Shehata M (2001) Value orientations, income, and displacement effects, and voluntary contributions. Exp Econ 4:183–195Google Scholar
  14. Buckley N, Mestelman S, Shehata M (2003) Subsidizing public inputs. J Public Econ 87:819–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burlando R, Guala F (2005) Heterogenous agents in public goods experiments. Exp Econ 8:35–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cameron L, Brown P, Chapman J (1998) Social value orientations and decisions to take proenvironmental action. J Appl Soc Psychol 28(8):675–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Canegallo C, Ortona G, Ottone S, Ponzaono F, Scacciati F (2008) Competition versus cooperation: some experimental evidence. J Socio Econ 37:18–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carlsson F, Johansson-Stenman O, Nam PK (2012) Social preferences are stable over long periods of time. Working paper, University of GothenburgGoogle Scholar
  19. Carpenter J (2003) Is fairness used instrumentally? Evidence from sequential bargaining. J Econ Psychol 24:467–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carpenter J (2005) Endogenous social preferences. Rev Radic Polit Econ 37(1):63–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Charness G, Rabin M (2002) Understanding preferences with simple tests. Q J Econ 117:817–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Chen Y, Li XS (2009) Group identity and social preferences. Am Econ Rev 99(1):431–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cornelissen G, Dewitte S, Warlop L (2007) Social value orientation as a moral intuition: decision-making in the dictator game. Working paper, Universitat Pompeu Fabra and Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  24. Cox J, Sadiraj V (2012) Direct tests of individual preferences for efficiency and equity. Econ Inq. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2010.00336.x
  25. Crawford V, Broseta B (1998) What price coordination? The efficiency-enhancing effect of auctioning the right to play. Am Econ Rev 88(1):198–225Google Scholar
  26. de Oliveira A, Croson R, Eckel C (2012) The stability of social preferences in a low-income neighborhood. South Econ J (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  27. Deutsch M (1958) Trust and suspicion. J Conflict Resolut 2(4):265–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eckel C, Grossman P (1996) Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games Econ Behav 16(2):181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eckel C, Grossman P (2005) Managing diversity by creating team identity. J Econ Behav Organ 58(3):371–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Forsythe R, Horowitz J, Savin NE, Sefton M (1994) Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games Econ Behav 6(3):347–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Frisch D (1993) Reasons for framing effects. Organ Behav Hum Dec 54(3):399–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gächter S, Orzen H, Renner E, Starmer C (2009) Are experimental economists prone to framing effects? A natural field experiment. J Econ Behav Organ 70(3):443–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Griesinger D, Livingston J (1973) Toward a model of interpersonal motivation in experimental games. Behav Sci 18(3):173–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Güth W, Levati M, Ploner M (2008) Social identity and trust: an experimental investigation. J Socio Econ 37:1293–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hertel G, Fiedler K (1994) Affective and cognitive influences in a social dilemma game. Eur J Soc Psychol 24(1):131–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hertel G, Fiedler K (1998) Fair and dependent versus egoistic and free: effects of semantic and evaluative priming on the ’ring measure of social values’. Eur J Soc Psychol 28(1):49–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hoffman E, McCabe K, Shachat K, Smith V (1994) Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games Econ Behav 7(3):346–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Iedema J, Poppe M (1994) The effect of self-presentation on social value orientation. J Soc Psychol 134(6):771–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Isoni A, Brooks P, Loomes G, Sugden R (2011) Do markets reveal preferences—or shape them? Working paper, University of East AngliaGoogle Scholar
  40. Joireman J, Lasane T, Bennett J, Richards D, Solaimani S (2001) Integrating social value orientation and the consideration of future consequences within the extended norm activation model of proenvironmental behavior. Br J Soc Psychol 40(1):133–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kanagaretnam K, Mestelman S, Nainar K, Shehata M (2009) The impact of social value orientation and risk attitudes on trust and reciprocity. J Econ Psychol 30:368–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kramer R, McClintock C, Messick D (1986) Social values and cooperative response to a simulated resource conservation crisis. J Pers 54(3):576–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mallett RK, Mello ZR, Wagner DE, Worrell F, Burrow RN, Andretta JR (2011) Do I belong? It depends on when you ask. Cult Divers Ethn Min 17(4):432–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Matthey A, Regner T (2011) On the independence of history: experience spill-overs between experiments. Working paper, Max Planck Institute of EconomicsGoogle Scholar
  45. McFarland SG (1981) Effects of question order on survey responses. Public Opin Q 45(2):208–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Messick D, McClintock C (1968) Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. J Exp Soc Psychol 4(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McClintock C, Allison S (1989) Social value orientation and helping behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 19(4):353–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Offerman T, Sonnemans J, Schram A (1996) Value orientations, expectations and voluntary contributions in public goods. Econ J 106:817–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Parks C (1994) The predictive ability of social values in resource dilemmas and public goods games. Pers Soc Psychol B 20:431–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Poulsen A, Poulsen O (2006) Endogenous preferences and social-dilemma institutions. J Inst Theor Econ 162:627–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pruyn A, Riezebos R (2001) Effects of the awareness of social dilemmas on advertising budget-setting: a scenario study. J Econ Psychol 22(1):43–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ruffle B (1998) More is better, but fair is fair: tipping on dictator and ultimatum games. Games Econ Behav 23:247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sass M, Weimann J (2012) The dynamics of individual preferences in repeated public good experiments. Working paper, University of MagdeburgGoogle Scholar
  54. Savikhin A, Sheremeta RM (2012) Simultaneous decision-making in competitive and cooperative environments. Econ Inq. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2012.00474.x
  55. Schotter A, Weiss A, Zapater I (1996) Fairness and survival in ultimatum and dictatorship games. J Econ Behav Organ 31(1):37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schwarz N (1999) Self-reports: how the questions shape the answers. Am Psychol 54(2):93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smeesters D, Warlop L, Van Avermaet E, Corneille O, Yzerbyt V (2003) Do not prime hawks with doves: the interplay of construct activation and consistency of social value orientation on cooperative behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 84(5):972–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Smith VL (2010) Theory and experiment: what are the questions?. J Econ Behav Organ 73:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sonnemans J, Van Dijk F, Van Winden F (2006) On the dynamics of social ties structures in groups. J Econ Psychol 27:187–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van de Walle S, Van Ryzin GG (2011) The order of questions in a survey on citizen satisfaction with public services: lessons from a split-ballot experiment. Public Adm 89(4):1436–1450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Huyck J, Battalio R, Beil R (1993) Asset markets as an equilibrium selection mechanism: coordination failure, game form auctions and tacit communication. Games Econ Behav 5:485–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Lange P, Otten W, De Bruin E, Joireman J (1997) Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: theory and preliminary evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 73(4):733–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Van Vugt M, Van Lange P, Meertens R (1996) Commuting by car or public transportation? A social dilemma analysis of travel mode judgements. Eur J Soc Psychol 26:373–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Volk S, Thöni C, Ruigrok W (2012) Temporal stability and psychological foundations of cooperation preferences. J Econ Behav Organ 81:664–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. von Weizsäcker CC (1971) Notes on endogenous change of tastes. J Econ Theory 3:345–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Welch JL, Swift CO (1992) Question order effects in taste testing of beverages. J Acad Market Sci 20(3):265–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsRutgers University-CamdenCamdenUSA

Personalised recommendations