Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-6scc2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-25T05:16:23.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self-interest and fairness: self-serving choices of justice principles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Ismael Rodriguez-Lara  and
Luis Moreno-Garrido
Ismael Rodriguez-Lara*
Affiliation:
Dpto. Analisis Economico, ERI-CES Universidad de Valencia, Campus Dels Tarongers, Avda. de los Naranjos s/n, 46011 Valencia, Spain
Luis Moreno-Garrido
Affiliation:
Dpto. Fundamentos del Analisis Economico, Universidad de Alicante, Carretera San Vicente s/n, San Vicente del Raspeig, 03690 Alicante, Spain
*
Ismael.Rodriguez@uv.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We introduce non-enforceable property rights over a bargaining surplus in a dictator game with production, where the agent's effort is differentially rewarded and subsequently determines the size of the surplus. Using experimental data, we elicit individual preferences over the egalitarian, accountability and libertarian principles and provide evidence to support the inability of these justice principles to individually account for the observed behavior. We show that the justice principle that can be used to explain dictators’ choices depends on whether dictators are paid more or less than recipients for their effort. Our findings suggest that dictators do employ justice principles in self-serving ways and choose in each context the justice principle that maximizes their financial payoffs.

Keywords

Dictator gameJustice principlesSelf-interestSelf-serving bias

JEL classification

D63: Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement P14: Property Rights D64: Altruism • Philanthropy • Intergenerational Transfers C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior D3: Distribution

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 158 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

An earlier version of this paper was circulated as working paper (WP-AD 2010-13) under the title “Self-interest and justice principles”.

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9295-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Andreoni, J., & Bernheim, B. D. (2009). Social image and the 50-50 norm: a theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica, 77, 1607–1636.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (2002). Giving according to GARP: an experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70, 737–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardsley, N. (2008). Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact? Experimental Economics, 11, 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review, 30, 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral Game Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelen, A. W., Hole, A. D., Sørensen, E., & Tungodden, B. (2007). The pluralism of fairness ideals: an experimental approach. American Economic Review, 97, 818–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappelen, A. W., Sørensen, E., & Tungodden, B. (2010). Responsibility for what? Fairness and individual responsibility. European Economic Review, 54, 429–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, T. L., Frykblom, P., & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Hardnose the dictator. American Economic Review, 92, 1218–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croson, R., & Konow, J. (2009). Social preferences and moral biases. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 69, 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dana, J., Weber, R. A., & Xi Kuang, J. (2007). Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Journal of Economic Theory, 33, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelmann, D., & Strobel, M. (2004). Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. American Economic Review, 94, 857–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. (1995). Equality and responsibility. European Economic Review, 39, 683–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M., & Maniquet, F. (2011). Compensation and responsibility. In Arrow, K., Sen, A., Suzumura, K. (Eds.) Handbook of social choice and welfare (Vol. 2). North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Frohlich, N., Oppenheimer, J., & Kurki, A. (2004). Modeling other-regarding preferences and an experimental test. Public Choice, 119, 91–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gächter, S., & Riedl, A. (2005). Moral property rights in bargaining with infeasible claims. Managment Sciences, 51, 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G.W., & McKee, M. (1985). Experimental evaluation of the Coase theorem. The Journal of Law & Economics, 28, 653–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. (1994). Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 346–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. T. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76, 728–741.Google Scholar
Karni, E., & Safra, Z. (2002). Individual sense of justice: a utility representation. Econometrica, 70, 263284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kritikos, A., & Bollea, F. (2001). Distributional concerns: equity-or efficiency-oriented? Economics Letters, 73, 333–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konow, J. (1996). A positive theory of economic fairness. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 31, 13–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konow, J. (2000). Fair shares: accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. American Economic Review, 90, 1072–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konow, J. (2001). Fair and square: the four sides of distributive justice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 46, 137–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konow, J. (2003). Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 41, 1188–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konow, J., Saijo, T., & Akai, K. (2009). Morals and mores: experimental evidence on equity and equality. Mimeo.Google Scholar
List, J. A. (2007). On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. Journal of Political Economy, 115, 482–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J. A., & Cherry, T. L. (2000). Learning to accept in the ultimatum game: evidence from an experimental design that generates low offers. Experimental Economics, 3, 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, D., & Sentis, K. (1983). Fairness, preference and fairness biases. In Messick, D. & Cook, C. S. (Eds.), Equity theory. Psychological and sociological perspectives (pp. 61–94). New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
Mittone, L., & Ploner, M. (2006). Is it just legitimacy of endowments? An experimental analysis of unilateral giving. CEEL Working papers 0602.Google Scholar
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. New York: Basic Books/Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Oxoby, R. J., & Spraggon, J. (2008). Mine and yours: property rights in dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 65, 703–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roemer, J. E. (1998). Equality of opportunity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruffle, B. J. (1998). More is better, but fair is fair: tipping in dictator and ultimatum game. Games and Economic Behavior, 23, 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutström, E. E., & Williams, M. B. (2000). Entitlements and fairness: an experimental study of distributive preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43, 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaari, M., & Bar-Hillel, M. (1984). On dividing justly. Social Choice and Welfare, 1, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, P. (1994). Equity: in theory and practice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Rodriguez-Lara and Moreno-Garrido supplementary material

Rodriguez-Lara and Moreno-Garrido supplementary material
Download Rodriguez-Lara and Moreno-Garrido supplementary material(File)
File 766.6 KB