Process fairness and dynamic consistency

Trautmann, Stefan T.; Wakker, Peter P.

doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2010.08.031

Cited by 34 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although our experiment is not designed to test for Machina's (1989) dynamic consistency hypothesis, we believe that these results point in the direction of a signficant portion of players being dynamically inconsistent. Roughly speaking, dynamically inconsistent individuals neglect lotteries that occurred before the current decision node and thus modify their behaviour before and after a lottery has taken place (Machina 1989;Trautmann and Wakker 2010;Trautmann and van de Kuilen 2014). Since before each round in Variable Position Conditions players always have a 50 % probability of being selected as proposers, we conjecture that the change in behaviour that we observe across Variable Position Conditions is due to players ''neglecting'' L 1 , while responding to L 2 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Procedural fairness in lotteries assigning initial roles in a dynamic setting

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Registro de acceso restringido Este recurso no está disponible en acceso abierto por política de la editorial. No obstante, se puede acceder al texto completo desde la Universitat Jaume I o si el usuario cuenta con suscripción. Registre d'accés restringit Aquest recurs no està disponible en accés obert per política de l'editorial. No obstant això, es pot accedir al text complet des de la Universitat Jaume I o si l'usuari compta amb subscripció. Restricted access item This item isn't open access because of publisher's policy. The full--text version is only available from Jaume I University or if the user has a running suscription to the publisher's contents.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Procedural fairness in lotteries assigning initial roles in a dynamic setting

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A simple functional form that may capture the type of behavior that we find is based on a reversal of the expectations operator: rather than having expected utility only over final outcomes, agents might have utility over the expected payoffs that each player obtains (see for example Trautmann 2009). This could rationalize the behavior since some agents might want to leave something, but not all, to the receiver.…”

Section: Social Situations -Theoretical Explanationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Difference between Social and Private Goods

Sandroni

Ludwig

Kircher

2013

The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard economic models have long been applied to choices over private consumption goods, but have recently been extended to incorporate social situations as well. We challenge the applicability of standard decision-theoretic models to social settings. In an experiment where choices affect the payoffs of someone else, we find that a large fraction of subjects prefer randomization over any of the deterministic outcomes. This tendency prevails whether the other party knows about the choice situation or not. Such randomization violates standard decision theory axioms that require that lotteries are never better than their best deterministic component. For conceptually similar choices in classical non-social situations, we do not find much evidence for such violations, suggesting the need for theories of uncertainty that are targeted to social settings.

show abstract

“…Specifically, outcome‐oriented thinking is in line with cognitive system, whereas process‐oriented thinking matches the cognitive style of affective system (Steinhart, Kamins, & Mazursky, ), and the difference‐insight may be aroused when the cognitive outcome is not in line with affective process during social comparison. Dynamic inconsistencies can arise as in unexpected utility when process deviates from outcome (Trautmann, ). As one reported, “We spend almost the same amount of time to walk, but as a result, the device shows that he walked more steps than I did, it's so weird” (Mi Band).…”

Section: Research Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantified or nonquantified: How quantification affects consumers' motivation in goal pursuit

Zhang

et al. 2019

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Being exposed to more data and devices with tracking functions than ever, quantification is concerned by an increasing number of consumers. The self‐reflection from data may raise consumers' awareness of their own goals to better modify their behaviors. This paper describes consumers' reaction to quantification and confirms its motivational effect in goal pursuit. First, we investigate the motivational effect of quantification and reveal its internal mechanism from the individual–community perspective. Results show that quantification can promote consumers' goal pursuit motivation. A quantified (vs. nonquantified) way to track progress in pursuit of a goal can strengthen consumers' self‐empowerment (individual level) and difference‐insight (community level), thus enhancing the goal pursuit motivation. Second, we explore the moderating effect of some factors on the motivational effect of quantification. Results confirm that self‐empowerment can be enhanced with high data–color consistency, and difference‐insight can be increased with low outcome–process consistency. Third, we identify the validity of various data presentation modes. Using the interactive progress framing (to date with to go) together with the several subunits mode to deliver data in different progress stages is found to be an effective way to promote consumers' goal pursuit motivation.

show abstract

Process fairness and dynamic consistency

Cited by 34 publications

References 20 publications

Procedural fairness in lotteries assigning initial roles in a dynamic setting

Procedural fairness in lotteries assigning initial roles in a dynamic setting

On the Difference between Social and Private Goods

Quantified or nonquantified: How quantification affects consumers' motivation in goal pursuit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About