Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Cooperators Are Faster but Not More Accurate in Social Exchange Decisions Compared to Defectors Read chapter Read first chapter

2022 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

7. Loss Sharing and Social Distance: An Experimental Study

Authors : Bartłomiej Wiśnicki, Adam Karbowski

Published in: Advances in Quantitative Economic Research

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

We investigate the prosocial behaviour of decision-makers in the context of financial losses. We find that in the dictator game, the loss transferred to other people occupying subsequent positions on the social distance scale behaves non-monotonically (it initially drops and then rises). Further, those effects tend to be smaller when the dictator game is replaced by the ultimatum game. Finally, we find that for the 20th ranked person and higher, decision-makers are prone to transfer a higher amount of loss to that person than willing to receive it from her. It means that egoistic motive dominates the altruistic one starting from a place no. 20 on a social distance scale.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Preference Reversal and Impulsivity in Discounting of Monetary Losses
next chapter Impatience and Altruism Over Hypothetical Monetary Losses
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
In the standard ultimatum game, if the transfer is not accepted, both proposer and recipient are worst off: they both end up with nothing. In our setting, if the sum is not agreed upon only the respondent has the objectively worst outcome: she would need to incur the total amount of loss.
 
2
First, the time of the loss was given to the participant and then for a given period the respondent answered questions concerning people on different social distance scale.
 
Literature
Bechler, C., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2015). Proportion offered in the dictator and ultimatum games decreases with amount and social distance. Behavioural Processes, 115, 149–155. CrossRef
Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review, 96, 1652–1678.CrossRef
Branas-Garza, P., Rodriguez-Lara, I., & Sanchez, A. (2017). Humans expect generosity. Scientific Reports, 7, 42446.CrossRef
Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2008). What’s in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68, 29–35.CrossRef
Choi, Y., & Yu, Y. (2014). The influence of perceived corporate sustainability practices on employees and organizational performance. Sustainability, 6(1), 348–364.CrossRef
Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics, 14(4), 583–610.CrossRef
Henrich, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., Cardenas, J. C., Gurven, M., Gwako, E., Henrich, N., Lesorogol, C., Marlowe, F., Tracer, D., & Ziker, J. (2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312(5781), 1767–1770.CrossRef
Hopkins, E. (2014). Competitive altruism, Mentalizing, and signaling. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 6, 272–292.
Jones, B., & Rachlin, H. (2006). Social discounting. Psychological Science, 17, 283–286.CrossRef
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, XLVII, 263–291.CrossRef
Karbowski, A. (2018). Delay and social discounting of losses. Mimeo.
Karbowski, A., & Wiśnicki, B. (2021). Are there gender differences in delay discounting of monetary losses? Mimeo.CrossRef
Kim, H., Schnall, S., Yi, D., & White, M. (2013). Social distance decreases responders’ sensitivity to fairness in the ultimatum game. Judgment and Decision making, 8, 632–638.
Kovarik, J. (2009). Giving it now or later: Altruism and discounting. Economics Letters, 102, 152–154.CrossRef
Maner, J., & Gailliot, M. (2007). Altruism and egoism: Prosocial motivations for helping depend on relationship context. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 347–358.CrossRef
Neumann, T., Kierspel, S., Windrich, I., Berger, R., & Vogt, B. (2018). How to split gains and losses? Experimental evidence of dictator and ultimatum games. Games, 9(4), 78.CrossRef
Osiński, J., Karbowski, A., & Ostaszewski, P. (2015). Social discounting: Choice between rewards for other people. Behavioural Processes, 115, 61–63.CrossRef
Pellegrini, C., Rizzi, F., & Frey, M. (2018). The role of sustainable human resource practices in influencing employee behavior for corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27, 1221–1232.CrossRef
Schnall, S., Roper, J., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2010). Elevation leads to altruistic behavior. Psychological Science, 21, 315–320.CrossRef
Taylor, E. Z., & Curtis, M. B. (2018). Mentoring: A path to prosocial behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 152, 1133–1148.CrossRef
Vravosinos, O., & Konstantinou, K. (2019). Asymmetric social distance in the ultimatum game. Review of Behavioral Economics, 6, 159–192.CrossRef
Yi, R., Charlton, S., Porter, C., Carter, A. E., & Bickel, W. K. (2011). Future altruism: Social discounting of delayed rewards. Behavioural Processes, 86, 160–163.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Loss Sharing and Social Distance: An Experimental Study
Authors
Bartłomiej Wiśnicki
Adam Karbowski
Copyright Year
2022
Book
Advances in Quantitative Economic Research

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-98178-5

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-98179-2

Copyright Year: 2022

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98179-2_7

Premium Partner

    Image Credits