Blaming the Messenger: Notes on the Current State of Experimental Economics
11 Pages Posted: 17 May 2011
Date Written: January 1, 2010
Abstract
Binmore and Shaked (this issue) criticize Fehr and Schmidt’s (1999) model of inequality aversion. We present a considerable body of experimental research supporting the inequality aversion motive. Binmore and Shaked also urge experimentalists to adopt “a more skeptical attitude when far-reaching claims about human behavior are extrapolated from very slender data.” It is true that experimental findings indicate that the standard neoclassical model fails to predict a considerable range of strategic behaviors widely observed in the laboratory, particularly under conditions where normative behavior is prevalent in every-day social life. This is indeed a “far-reaching claim,” but one amply justified by an impressive and constantly growing body of evidence from experiments.
Keywords: Inequality Aversion, Neoclassical Theory, Experimental Economics
JEL Classification: B4, C9, D63
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
Recommended Papers
-
Toward an Understanding of the Economics of Charity: Evidence from a Field Experiment
By Craig E. Landry, Andreas Lange, ...
-
What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market
By Marianne Bertrand, Dean S. Karlan, ...
-
What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market
By Dean Karlin, Marianne Bertrand, ...
-
Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment
By Dean S. Karlan and John A. List
-
Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment
By Dean S. Karlan and John A. List
-
Rebates Versus Matching: Does How We Subsidize Charitable Contributions Matter?
-
Charitable Giving and Income Taxation in a Life-Cycle Model: An Analysis of Panel Data
By Gerald Auten, Holger Sieg, ...