Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte.Abstract. We construct a dedicated web interface and use it to conduct a laboratory experiment to study willingness to lend and preference over borrowers in micro-finance lending. We distinguish between perceptions of transaction-related factors, such as neediness and trustworthiness, and identity-related factors such as ethnicity and gender. By looking at both channels together we are able to assess the extent to which identity-related differences in lending can be attributed to differences in how transaction-related factors are perceived among people with similar and different identities. We find that (1) both financial return and philanthropic motivation affect the amount lent, with little evidence that the former crowds out the latter; (2) lenders have a statistically significant preference for borrowers with whom they share gender and ethnic similarity even after controlling for perceived riskiness, neediness, and other factors including physical attractiveness and weight; and (3) lenders are willing to trade greater risk in order to help more needy borrowers, but at a rate sensitive to their own degree of financial exposure.
We conduct a field experiment on electricity conservation to study whether revealing both the competitive state and the social state in a group contest affects individual beliefs and efforts. Our experiment randomizes group composition, participation, and types of information received in the contest. We find that contestants without feedback about relative performance had difficulty assessing their group's competitive status, and laggards within a group tended to be overconfident about their relative contribution. In addition, we find that contestants receiving both competitive and social information were more likely to have correct beliefs about their positions during the contest and exerted the most effort. Meanwhile, contestants receiving no performance feedback did not behave differently from those who did not participate in the contest. Overall, contestants reduced their energy use by 10% during the contest. Our results support the notion that providing feedback is important in a group contest.
Past experimental research has shown that when rating systems are available, buyers are more generous in accepting unfair offers in ultimatum bargaining. However, it also suggests that, under these conditions, sellers behave more fairly to avoid receiving negative feedback. This paper experimentally investigates which effect is stronger with the use of a rating system: buyers’ inflated inequity acceptance or sellers’ disapproval aversion. We explore this question by varying the information condition on the buyers’ side. Our experiment shows that in a setup where the size of the pie is common knowledge for both buyers and sellers, when a rating system is present, the sellers exhibit disapproval aversion but the buyers do not display greater acceptance of inequity. By contrast, when only sellers are aware of the size of the pie, sellers behave aggressively to exploit buyers and their behavior does not change in the presence of a rating system; however, buyers display greater acceptance of inequity when a rating system is present. We discuss how these results can be explained by a theoretical model that includes sellers’ social disapproval aversion and buyers’ disappointment aversion in addition to the players’ inequality aversion.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s10683-017-9554-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Abstract:Recent experimental research has shown that when rating systems are available, buyers are more generous in accepting unfair offers made by sellers. It has also shown that sellers make fairer decisions when they are rated, while some studies show that they are little affected by the rating systems. These studies are conducted under complete information settings. However, asymmetric information about the values of traded commodities between sellers and buyers may change their perception of fairness and thus may change sellers' decisions. We conduct ultimatum game experiments in which only the sellers are informed of the size of pies. We find that when rating systems are available to the buyers, the buyers become more amenable to potentially unfair offers.We also find that sellers attempt to sell the commodity at higher prices, taking advantage of the buyers' openness to potentially unfair offers, contrary to the past studies with complete information.Keywords: Experiments, Ultimatum Game, Incomplete Information, Emotion, Rating, Social Approval, Social Disapproval. JEL classification codes: C91, D03, D82, M21* Correspondence author: kenju.kamei@gmail.com, kkamei@bgsu.edu. TEL: +1-419-372-6868. This project was supported by a grant from Murata Science Foundation. We thank Kyoo H. Kim, Louis Putterman, Pedro Dal Bó, and the seminar audience at Bowling Green State University for helpful comments. 2 Research highlights We experimentally study ultimatum games where only the sellers are informed of the size of the pie. The buyers are more open to potentially unfair offers when they are given opportunities to rate their matched sellers. The sellers make more unfair offers when the buyers are given opportunities to rate them.3
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.