Norm focusing and losses—Evidence of ultimatum game experiments

Sabrina Kierspel, Thomas Neumann, Ivo Windrich, Roger Berger, Bodo Vogt
{"title":"Norm focusing and losses—Evidence of ultimatum game experiments","authors":"Sabrina Kierspel, Thomas Neumann, Ivo Windrich, Roger Berger, Bodo Vogt","doi":"10.3389/frbhe.2024.1238325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Human decision-making pertaining to gains compared to those pertaining losses is shown to be quite different. However, mixed evidence is provided regarding the effect on the decision-makers' prosocial behaviors; that is, losses are shown to either increase or decrease prosocial behaviors. In this context, the effect of social norms on observed behavior can play a crucial role.To examine this aspect in more detail, we conducted incentivized ultimatum game experiments and analyzed data from three treatments, the control treatments (without specific norm focus), and two different norm-focus treatments (“average behavior” treatment and “self-interested behavior” treatment). In total, 550 participants took part in our experiment. Basically, we found no significant difference between the division of gains and losses in the “control” and “self-interested behavior” treatments.However, we found such a difference in the “average behavior” treatment. In addition, we found that inducing a norm focus leads to less variance in proposers' behavior and a greater concentration of their demands around the induced norm in the “average behavior” treatment. In contrast, we found a higher variance in proposers' behavior in the “self-interested behavior” treatment. In terms of responders' behaviors, we observed a tendency toward a higher frequency of responders' rejections in the loss domain compared to the gains domain.","PeriodicalId":476280,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Behavioral Economics","volume":"799 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Behavioral Economics","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frbhe.2024.1238325","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Human decision-making pertaining to gains compared to those pertaining losses is shown to be quite different. However, mixed evidence is provided regarding the effect on the decision-makers' prosocial behaviors; that is, losses are shown to either increase or decrease prosocial behaviors. In this context, the effect of social norms on observed behavior can play a crucial role.To examine this aspect in more detail, we conducted incentivized ultimatum game experiments and analyzed data from three treatments, the control treatments (without specific norm focus), and two different norm-focus treatments (“average behavior” treatment and “self-interested behavior” treatment). In total, 550 participants took part in our experiment. Basically, we found no significant difference between the division of gains and losses in the “control” and “self-interested behavior” treatments.However, we found such a difference in the “average behavior” treatment. In addition, we found that inducing a norm focus leads to less variance in proposers' behavior and a greater concentration of their demands around the induced norm in the “average behavior” treatment. In contrast, we found a higher variance in proposers' behavior in the “self-interested behavior” treatment. In terms of responders' behaviors, we observed a tendency toward a higher frequency of responders' rejections in the loss domain compared to the gains domain.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
规范集中与损失--最后通牒博弈实验的证据
人类对收益的决策与对损失的决策截然不同。然而,在对决策者的亲社会行为的影响方面却证据不一;也就是说,损失会增加或减少亲社会行为。为了更详细地研究这方面的问题,我们进行了激励型最后通牒游戏实验,并分析了三种处理的数据,即对照处理(无特定规范重点)和两种不同的规范重点处理("平均行为 "处理和 "自利行为 "处理)。共有 550 名参与者参加了我们的实验。基本上,我们发现在 "控制 "和 "自利行为 "处理中,收益和损失的划分没有明显的差异,但在 "平均行为 "处理中,我们发现了这种差异。此外,我们还发现,在 "平均行为 "处理中,诱导对规范的关注会导致提议者的行为差异较小,而且他们的要求会更多地集中在诱导的规范周围。相反,我们发现在 "自利行为 "处理中,提议者的行为差异更大。就回应者的行为而言,我们发现,与收益领域相比,在损失领域回应者拒绝的频率更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Is the new mission-oriented R&D policy feasible?: evidence from the national R&D programs in Korea using CVM Supporting pension decisions with value clarification methods or testimonials: two studies showing mixed effects on activation and feeling of preparation Propensity to spend and borrow at a time of high pressure: the role of the meaning of Christmas and other psychological factors Post-play communication of emotions facilitates prosociality and cooperation Behavioral and contextual determinants of different stages of saving behavior
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1