Fairness and cheating
Daniel Houser (),
Stefan Vetter and
Joachim Winter ()
European Economic Review, 2012, vol. 56, issue 8, pages 1645-1655
We present evidence from a laboratory experiment showing that individuals who believe they were treated unfairly in an interaction with another person are more likely to cheat in a subsequent unrelated game. Specifically, subjects first participated in a dictator game. They then flipped a coin in private and reported the outcome. Subjects could increase their total payoff by cheating, i.e., lying about the outcome of the coin toss. We found that subjects were more likely to cheat in reporting the outcome of the coin flip when: (1) they received either nothing or a very small transfer from the dictator; and (2) they claimed to have been treated unfairly.
Keywords: Cheating; Fairness; Experimental design (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C91 D03 D63 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations View citations in EconPapers (64) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
Working Paper: Fairness and cheating (2012)
Working Paper: Fairness and Cheating (2011)
Working Paper: Fairness and Cheating (2010)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:eecrev:v:56:y:2012:i:8:p:1645-1655
Access Statistics for this article
European Economic Review is currently edited by T.S. Eicher, A. Imrohoroglu, E. Leeper, J. Oechssler and M. Pesendorfer
More articles in European Economic Review from Elsevier
Series data maintained by Dana Niculescu ().