Fairness and cheating

Daniel Houser, Stefan Vetter and Joachim Winter ()

European Economic Review, 2012, vol. 56, issue 8, 1645-1655

Abstract: 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)
Date: 2012
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (203)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292112001092
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
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) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:eecrev:v:56:y:2012:i:8:p:1645-1655

DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2012.08.001

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
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().