Moral Costs and Rational Choice: Theory and Experimental Evidence
James Cox (),
John List (),
Michael Price (),
Vjollca Sadiraj () and
Artefactual Field Experiments from The Field Experiments Website
The literature exploring other regarding behavior sheds important light on interesting social phenomena, yet less attention has been given to how the received results speak to foundational assumptions within economics. Our study synthesizes the empirical evidence, showing that recent work challenges convex preference theory but is largely consistent with rational choice theory. Guided by this understanding, we design a new, more demanding test of a central tenet of economics - the contraction axiom - within a sharing framework. Making use of more than 325 dictators participating in a series of allocation games, we show that sharing choices violate the contraction axiom. We advance a new theory that augments standard models with moral reference points to explain our experimental data. Our theory also organizes the broader sharing patterns in the received literature.
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-cbe, nep-exp and nep-hpe
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (10) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
Working Paper: Moral Costs and Rational Choice: Theory and Experimental Evidence (2019)
Working Paper: Moral Costs and Rational Choice: Theory and Experimental Evidence (2016)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:feb:artefa:00445
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Artefactual Field Experiments from The Field Experiments Website
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Joe Seidel ().