The House Money Effect and Negative Reciprocity

Danková, Katarína; Servátka, Maroš

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2392210

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other articles that rely on different games systematically find evidence of a house money effect (Dankováa and Servátka, 2015;Scrogin, 2017). On the other hand, Hackinger (2016) conducted a public goods game with German students -by the way, he used the Cognitive Reflection Test mentioned before to elicit cognitive skills -, being able to show that the house money effect showed up only for participants with low cognitive ability.…”

Section: Subsequent and Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of the Experimental Design of “My Money or Yours: House Money Payment Effects''

Freitas

2022

JEBS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considering the expanding usage of experiments in Economics, the present article chooses one published paper in the area, dealing with the house money effect and analyzes it in a didactic way as concepts relating to the experimental design of lab experiments are evoked and discussed. In order to do so, three sections are outlined. First of all, the house money effect is explained and the article under scrutiny is placed in the context of what had already been done before; secondly, some of the experimental design concepts are summarised and then applied to soundly describe the experimental design of their experiment. Finally, after briefly presenting their results, there is an analytical overview of what has been done after their work and a personal take on possible lines for further research.

show abstract

Section: Subsequent and Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of the Experimental Design of “My Money or Yours: House Money Payment Effects''

Freitas

2022

JEBS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the literature on property rights entitlements, it has been shown that whether the assignment to positions triggers fairness concerns often depends on agent's perceived entitlements (sometimes also referred to as legitimacy or deservingness as in Brañas-Garza, 2006). Earlier literature provides ample evidence that fairness concerns are closely related to real effort and relative performance (e.g., Bosman, Sutter, and van Winden, 2005;Cameron, Chaudhuri, Erkal, and Gangadharan, 2009;Cherry, Frykblom, and Shogren, 2002;Danková and Servátka, 2015;Hoffman and Spitzer, 1985;Oxoby and Spraggon, 2008), but do not depend on variables that the agent cannot reasonably influence (see the accountability principle in Konow, 2000).…”

Section: Property Rights Entitlementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fairness concerns and job assignment to positions with different surplus

Danková

Morita

Servátka

et al. 2022

Southern Economic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does job assignment to positions with different surplus affect fairness concerns? We experimentally examine agents' fairness concerns in a three-person ultimatum game in which all agents are asked to complete a general knowledge quiz before being assigned to a high-stake or low-stake position. We disentangle two possible channels through which job assignment impacts fairness concerns, wage differences and the principal's intentions, by comparing cases in which the job assignment is determined randomly or by the principal. The knowledge quiz, which mimics performance evaluation, signifies the distinction between the two cases as it provides a basis on which the principal can make the assignment decision. We find that the principal's intentions significantly impact fairness concerns of the agents assigned to the low-stake position, but wage differences themselves do not. We elaborate on managerial implications of our findings.

show abstract

“…From the Shark side, the invested money comes from their own funds rather than a pool of money the show allocates. Experimental research has shown that behavioral differences arise between money that has been earned -such as the funds and business equity Shark Tank deals with -and money that has been endowed (Hoffman et al 1994;Cherry et al 2002;Reinstein and Riener 2012;Danková and Servátka 2015). 8 The fact that the bargaining process is more personal than an experimental setting or a different game show setting, where the money is provided to the bargaining parties, allows for the possibility of real losses on behalf of both bargaining parties and avoids potential 'house money' or 'windfall' effects that may arise in situations where bargaining occurs with money endowed by a third party.…”

Section: Advantages and Disadvantages Of Shark Tank Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender match and negotiation: evidence from angel investment on Shark Tank

Jetter

Stockley

2022

Empir Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using comprehensive data of 4893 interactions from the popular television show Shark Tank, we test whether gender match with entrepreneurs correlates with investors’ likelihood to extend funding offers. We find female investors are 35% more likely to engage with female (rather than male) entrepreneurs, while less systematic gender preferences emerge for male investors. Heterogeneity analyses suggest this result remains exclusive to non-male-dominated product categories, lending support to the industry representation hypothesis. We also find it is exclusive to ventures with lower asking valuations. Estimates are robust to the inclusion of a comprehensive set of control variables (such as asking valuation, investor-, and season-fixed effects) and a range of alternative specifications.

show abstract

The House Money Effect and Negative Reciprocity

Cited by 6 publications

References 63 publications

An Analysis of the Experimental Design of “My Money or Yours: House Money Payment Effects''

An Analysis of the Experimental Design of “My Money or Yours: House Money Payment Effects''

Fairness concerns and job assignment to positions with different surplus

Gender match and negotiation: evidence from angel investment on Shark Tank

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About