Preferences over income distribution are the basis for a variety of models that aim at explaining results in economic experiments. The direct evidence concerning these preferences, however, is limited to a relatively small set of games. The authors discuss crucial evidence, including that from a recent large-scale Internet experiment and the different models' performance. It appears that subjects are highly heterogeneous and that the relative impact of different motives depends on a variety of factors. The authors present a general model that can help as a starting point for measuring distributional preferences.
Ackert, Lucy F., Ann Gillette, Jorge Martinez-Vazquez, and Mark Rider. 2005. Experimental evidence for tax policy design. International Studies Program Working Paper 05-17, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
2.
Andreoni, James, and John H. Miller. 2002. Giving according to GARP: An experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica70 (2): 737-753.
3.
Blanco, Mariana, Dirk Engelmann, and Hans-Theo Normann. 2006. A within-subject analysis of other-regarding preferences. Working Paper, Royal Holloway, University of London.
4.
Bohnet, Iris, and Bruno S. Frey. 1999a. The sound of silence in prisoner's dilemma and dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization38 (1): 43-57.
5.
Bohnet, Iris, and Bruno S. Frey. 1999b. Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games: Comment. The American Economic Review89 (1): 335-339.
6.
Bolton, Gary E., Jordi Brandts, and Axel Ockenfels. 1998. Measuring motivations for the reciprocal responses observed in a simple dilemma game. Experimental Economics1 (3): 207-219.
7.
Bolton, Gary E., Jordi Brandts, and Axel Ockenfels. 2005. Fair procedures: Evidence from games involving lotteries. The Economic Journal115 (506): 1054-1076.
8.
Bolton, Gary E., and Axel Ockenfels. 2000. ERC—a theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. The American Economic Review90 (1): 166-193.
9.
Bolton, Gary E., and Axel Ockenfels. Forthcoming. Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments: Comment. The American Economic Review.
10.
Camerer, Colin F.2003. Behavioral game theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
Cason, Timothy N., and Vai-Lam Mui. 1997. A laboratory study of group polarisation in the team dictator game. The Economic Journal107 (444): 1465-1483.
12.
Charness, Gary. 2004. Attribution and reciprocity in an experimental labor market. Journal of Labor Economics22 (3): 665-688.
13.
Charness, Gary, and Uri Gneezy. Forthcoming. What's in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization.
14.
Charness, Gary, Ernan Haruvy, and Doron Sonsino. Forthcoming. Social distance and reciprocity: An Internet experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization.
15.
Charness, Gary, and Matthew Rabin. 2002. Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics117 (3): 817-869.
16.
Cherry, Todd L., Peter Frykblom, and Jason F. Shogren. 2002. Hardnose the dictator. The American Economic Review92 (4): 1218-1221.
17.
Cox, James C.2004. How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior46 (2): 260-281.
18.
Cox, James C., Daniel Friedman, and Steven Gjerstad. Forthcoming. A tractable model of reciprocity and fairness. Games and Economic Behavior.
19.
Cox, James C., and Vjollca Sadiraj. 2006. Direct tests of models of social preferences and a new model. Working paper, Georgia State University.
20.
Dana, Jason, Roberto A. Weber, and Jason Xi Kuang. 2003. Exploiting moral wriggle room: Behavior inconsistent with a preference for fairness. Working paper, Carnegie Mellon University.
21.
Dufwenberg, Martin, and Georg Kirchsteiger. 2004. A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior47 (2): 268-298.
22.
Engelmann, Dirk, and Martin Strobel. 2004. Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. The American Economic Review94 (4): 857-869.
23.
Engelmann, Dirk, and Martin Strobel. 2006. Fairness on the Internet: Distributional concerns in dictator games with high social distance. Working paper, Royal Holloway, University of London.
24.
Engelmann, Dirk, and Martin Strobel. Forthcoming. Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments: Reply. The American Economic Review.
25.
Falk, Armin, Ernst Fehr, and Urs Fischbacher. 2003. On the nature of fair behavior. Economic Inquiry41 (1): 20-26.
26.
Fehr, Ernst, Michael Naef, and Klaus M. Schmidt. Forthcoming. Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments: Comment. The American Economic Review.
27.
Fehr, Ernst, and Klaus M. Schmidt. 1999. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics114 (3): 817-868.
28.
Forsythe, Robert, Joel Horowitz, N. S. Savin, and Martin Sefton. 1994. Fairness in simple bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior6 (3): 347-369.
29.
Frey, Bruno S., and Iris Bohnet. 1997. Identification in democratic society. Journal of Socio-Economics26 (1): 25-38.
30.
Güth, Werner, Steffen Huck, and Wieland Müller. 2001. The relevance of equal splits in ultimatum games. Games and Economic Behavior37 (1): 161-169.
31.
Güth, Werner, Rolf Schmittberger, and Bernd Schwarze. 1982. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization3 (4): 367-388.
32.
Herreiner, Dorothea, and Clemens Puppe. 2004. Envy freeness in experimental fair division problems. Working paper, University of Karlsruhe.
33.
Hoffmann, Elizabeth, Kevin McCabe, Keith Shachat, and Vernon L. Smith. 1994. Preferences, property rights and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior7 (3): 346-380.
34.
Hoffmann, Elizabeth, Kevin McCabe, and Vernon L. Smith. 1996. Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. The American Economic Review86 (3): 653-660.
35.
Johannesson, Magnus, and Bjoern Persson. 2000. Non-reciprocal altruism in dictator games. Economics Letters69 (2): 137-142.
36.
Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard Thaler. 1986. Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of Business59 (4): 285-300.
37.
Karni, Edi, Tim Salmon, and Barry Sopher. 2001. Individual sense of fairness: An experimental study. Working paper, Johns Hopkins University.
38.
Kritikos, Alexander, and Friedel Bolle. 2001. Distributional concerns: Equity- or efficiencyoriented?Economics Letters73 (3): 333-338.
39.
Rabin, Matthew. 1993. Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. The American Economic Review83 (5): 1281-1302.
