Toward an understanding of the relative strengths of positive and negative reciprocity

Al‐Ubaydli, Omar; Gneezy, Uri; Lee, Min Sok; List, John A.

doi:10.3386/w16547

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We also find that negative reciprocity is stronger than positive reciprocity, that is, µ PD − µ D > µ C − µ PD . This is in line with a recent study which also reports that in one-shot situations negative reciprocity is stronger than positive reciprocity (Al-Ubaydli et al, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of outcome- and process-based social preferences and beliefs in Dictator Games and sequential Prisoner’s Dilemmas

Aksoy¹,

Weesie²

2014

Social Science Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, using a within-subjects design, we estimate the utility weights that subjects attach to the outcome of their interaction partners in four decision situations: (1) binary Dictator Games (DG), second player's role in the sequential Prisoner's Dilemma (PD) after the first player (2) cooperated and (3) defected, and (4) first player's role in the sequential Prisoner's Dilemma game. We find that the average weights in these four decision situations have the following order: (1)>(2)>(4)>(3). Moreover, the average weight is positive in (1) but negative in (2), (3), and (4). Our findings indicate the existence of strong negative and small positive reciprocity for the average subject, but there is also high interpersonal variation in the weights in these four nodes. We conclude that the PD frame makes subjects more competitive than the DG frame. Using hierarchical Bayesian modeling, we simultaneously analyze beliefs of subjects about others' utility weights in the same four decision situations. We compare several alternative theoretical models on beliefs, e.g., rational beliefs (Bayesian-Nash equilibrium) and a consensus model. Our results on beliefs strongly support the consensus effect and refute rational beliefs: there is a strong relationship between own preferences and beliefs and this relationship is relatively stable across the four decision situations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of outcome- and process-based social preferences and beliefs in Dictator Games and sequential Prisoner’s Dilemmas

Aksoy¹,

Weesie²

2014

Social Science Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, authors have begun to dig deeper into factors that affect reciprocity. For example, Gilchrist et al (2016) have studied the importance of the salience of wage gifts, Al-Ubaydli et al (2010) have looked at the interaction of reciprocity with reputational concerns, and Carpenter (2016) have focused on the existence of different types of agents (those who reciprocate and those who are motivated by intrinsic motivation). 6 This scarcity of literature on unconditional non-financial gifts stands in contrast to the growing body of literature on non-financial rewards as incentives (which are conditional on performance).…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…() have studied the importance of the salience of wage gifts, Al‐Ubaydli et al . () have looked at the interaction of reciprocity with reputational concerns, and Carpenter () have focused on the existence of different types of agents (those who reciprocate and those who are motivated by intrinsic motivation).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Magic of the Personal Touch: Field Experimental Evidence on Money and Appreciation as Gifts*

Bradler

Neckermann

2019

Scandinavian J Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we use two field experiments in professional settings to explore the effort levels of individuals in response to gifts. We extend the literature by looking at non‐financial gifts that signal worker appreciation and gifts that combine financial and non‐financial elements with or without a personal touch. We find that while money and appreciation are individually effective, these only work well together when they are combined with a personal touch. This suggests that responses to gifts are sensitive to the presentation of the gift as well as to interpersonal elements; these are factors that have so far been largely ignored in the literature but are easy to incorporate into existing principal–agent models.

show abstract

“…There are competing explanations that potentially explain the fact that riders tip more when they interact a second or third time with the same driver. For example, when riders match again with the same driver, they might update their views of the likelihood of meeting the same driver more than once on Uber-a form of strategic reciprocity, shown to be of great import in certain markets (see, e.g., List (2006); Al-Ubaydli, et al (2010)). Under this model, the increased chance of future interactions compels riders to tip more on all future trips.…”

Section: Repeat Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Drivers of Social Preferences: Evidence from a Nationwide Tipping Field Experiment

Chandar¹,

Gneezy

List

et al. 2019

SSRN Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even though social preferences affect nearly every facet of life, there exist many open questions on the economics of social preferences in markets. We leverage a unique opportunity to generate a large data set to inform the who's, what's, where's, and when's of social preferences through the lens of a nationwide tipping field experiment on the Uber platform. Our field experiment generates data from more than 40 million trips, allowing an exploration of social preferences in the ride sharing market using big data. Combining experimental and natural variation in the data, we are able to establish tipping facts as well as provide insights into the underlying motives for tipping. Interestingly, even though tips are made privately, and without external social benefits or pressure, more than 15% of trips are tipped. Yet, nearly 60% of people never tip, and only 1% of people always tip. Overall, the demand-side explains much more of the observed tipping variation than the supply-side.

show abstract

Toward an understanding of the relative strengths of positive and negative reciprocity

Cited by 5 publications

References 24 publications

Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of outcome- and process-based social preferences and beliefs in Dictator Games and sequential Prisoner’s Dilemmas

Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of outcome- and process-based social preferences and beliefs in Dictator Games and sequential Prisoner’s Dilemmas

The Magic of the Personal Touch: Field Experimental Evidence on Money and Appreciation as Gifts*

The Drivers of Social Preferences: Evidence from a Nationwide Tipping Field Experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About