Are people equally other-regarding when selecting a match versus choosing an allocation?
License
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
0038-4038; 2325-8012
Issue Date
Type of Publication
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
Southern economic journal, 2018, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 1088-1108
Cite
BELOT, Michele, FAFCHAMPS, Marcel, Are people equally other-regarding when selecting a match versus choosing an allocation?, Southern economic journal, 2018, Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 1088-1108 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/59989
Abstract
There are many assignment processes in which agents are given the opportunity to unilaterally select a match. Resulting allocations can be inefficient if agents do not internalize the consequences of their choice on others. To test this formally, we study how other-regarding behaviors vary across two decision contexts: when subjects make a pure allocation decision and when they select a partner. In both settings each subject's decision is final and it affects their payoff and that of other subjects in the same way. We find that subjects are more likely to sacrifice their own material well-being to increase that of others when dividing a pie than when selecting a partner in a large anonymous settingeven though the consequences on the material payoffs of others are identical. These findings suggest that in assignment processes with unilateral selection, efficiency can be improved by presenting the selection process as a choice between outcomes involving multiple individuals, instead of simply selecting a match for themselves.
Table of Contents
Additional Information
First published: 14 April 2018
External Links
Publisher
Version
Research Projects
Sponsorship and Funder Information
University of Oxford