The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity: Evidence and Economic Applications
Abstract
Most economic models are based on the self-interest hypothesis that assumes that all people are exclusively motivated by their material self-interest.In recent years experimental economists have gathered overwhelming evidence that systematically refutes the self-interest hypothesis and suggests that many people are strongly motivated by concerns for fairness and reciprocity.Moreover, several theoretical papers have been written showing that the observed phenomena can be explained in a rigorous and tractable manner.These theories in turn induced a new wave of experimental research offering additional exciting insights into the nature of preferences and into the relative performance of competing theories of fairness.The purpose of this paper is to review these recent developments, to point out open questions, and to suggest avenues for future research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988) · Critical Issues in Social Justice · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4 · Cited by 6,585
Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1006/game.1995.1027 · Cited by 5,548
Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.980 · Cited by 4,547
Self-citationCollective action and the evolution of social norms.
Ostrom, E. (2000) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.14.3.137 · Cited by 4,195
Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment
Fischbacher, U., Gächter, S., & Fehr, E. (2001) · Economics Letters · doi:10.1016/s0165-1765(01)00394-9 · Cited by 2,780
Self-citationWhen Social Outcomes Aren′t Fair: The Effect of Causal Attributions on Preferences
Blount, S. (1995) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1068 · Cited by 814
Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games
McCabe, K. A., Rigdon, M. L., & Smith, V. L. (2003) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/s0167-2681(03)00003-9 · Cited by 659
On expectations and the monetary stakes in ultimatum games
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K. A., & Smith, V. L. (1996) · International Journal of Game Theory · doi:10.1007/bf02425259 · Cited by 356
Cited by
Doing Good or Doing Well? Image Motivation and Monetary Incentives in Behaving Prosocially
Ariely, D., Bracha, A., & Meier, S. (2009) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.99.1.544 · Cited by 1,753
Social Comparisons and Pro-social Behavior: Testing “Conditional Cooperation” in a Field Experiment
Frey, B. S., & Meier, S. (2004) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/0002828043052187 · Cited by 1,184
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2002) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00027 · Cited by 1,061
Self-citationJohnson, N. D., & Mislin, A. A. (2011) · Journal of Economic Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.joep.2011.05.007 · Cited by 955
Punishment and counter-punishment in public good games: Can we really govern ourselves?
Nikiforakis, N. (2008) · Journal of Public Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.04.008 · Cited by 711
Metadata
- Authors
- Fehr, E.
- Venue
- Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications: Eighth World Congress Vol I
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2008-12-12
- Pages
- 208-257
- OpenAlex
- W3123027183
- Cited by
- 506
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 198.57
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity: Evidence and Economic Applications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/ccol0521818729.007
- The paper
- Fehr, E. (2008). Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity: Evidence and Economic Applications. Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications: Eighth World Congress Vol I. https://doi.org/10.1017/ccol0521818729.007
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
