The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Inequality Aversion, Efficiency, and Maximin Preferences in Simple Distribution Experiments
Open accessAbstract
We present simple one-shot distribution experiments comparing the relative importance of efficiency concerns, maximin preferences, and inequality aversion, as well as the relative performance of the fairness theories by Gary E Bolton and Axel Ockenfels and by Ernst Fehr and Klaus M. Schmidt. While the Fehr-Schmidt theory performs better in a direct comparison, this appears to be due to being in line with maximin preferences. More importantly, we find that a combination of efficiency concerns, maximin preferences, and selfishness can rationalize most of the data while the Bolton-Ockenfels and Fehr-Schmidt theories are unable to explain important patterns.
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
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
Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355302760193904 · Cited by 3,970
Oxytocin increases trust in humans
Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03701 · Cited by 3,690
When 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
Cited by
Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355302760193904 · Cited by 3,970
Oxytocin increases trust in humans
Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03701 · Cited by 3,690
Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness
Dana, J., Weber, R. A., & Kuang, J. X. (2007) · Economic Theory · doi:10.1007/s00199-006-0153-z · Cited by 1,445
On The Economics and Biology of Trust
Fehr, E. (2009) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1162/jeea.2009.7.2-3.235 · Cited by 680
The Right and the Good: Distributive Justice and Neural Encoding of Equity and Efficiency
Hsu, M., Anen, C., & Quartz, S. R. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1153651 · Cited by 354
A Neurocomputational Model of Altruistic Choice and Its Implications
Hutcherson, C. A., Bushong, B., & Rangel, A. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.06.031 · Cited by 299
Social mindfulness: skill and will to navigate the social world.
Van Doesum, N. J., Van Lange, D. A. W., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0032540 · Cited by 241
Deciding for others reduces loss aversion
Andersson, O., Holm, H. J., Tyran, J.-R., & Wengström, E. (2016) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2085 · Cited by 194
Empathy, gender, and prosocial behavior
Kamas, L., & Preston, A. (2021) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2020.101654 · Cited by 139
Generalized Social Marginal Welfare Weights for Optimal Tax Theory
Saez, E., & Stantcheva, S. (2013) · doi:10.3386/w18835 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Engelmann, D., & Strobel, M.
- Venue
- American Economic Review
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 2004-09-01
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 857-869
- ISSN
- 0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2169999403
- Cited by
- 1,188
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 113.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
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.
