Attribution and Reciprocity in an Experimental Labor Market

By Gary Charness. Journal of Labor Economics, 2004

406 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, General Decision Sciences, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ad683a28672a53686b42de91371a8372484a1288

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In General Decision Sciences

In Safety Research

Citations in the corpus

The Currency of Reciprocity - Gift-Exchange in the Workplace (2012, positive): “Economic theories formalize reciprocal behavior by incorporating the distribution of outcomes, the perceived kindness of intentions, or simply emotional states as arguments into the individual utility function (see Charness and Rabin (2002), Falk and Fischbacher (2006), Rabin (1993), Dufwenberg and ”
Gift Exchange and Workers' Fairness Concerns: When Equality is Unfair (2010, positive): “For a similar approach of “exogenizing” endogenous incentives to test for the impact of intentions, compare for example Blount (1995), Charness (2004), or Cox (2004).”
A tractable model of process fairness under risk (2009, background): “First, in the program that studies the relative importance of outcome fairness and reciprocity (Brandts & Sola, 2001; Charness, 2004; Falk, Fehr, & Fischbacher, 2008), process fairness can be included as a third factor.”
Does Pay Inequality Affect Worker Effort? Experimental Evidence (2006, positive): “For example, in Charness (2004), workers who have been assigned a low wage by a random process are often nevertheless generous to the firms affected by their effort choices; in Charness and Levine (2007), the path (and the perceived intention of the firm) by which a net wage is generated affects…”
Intermediation Reduces Punishment (and Reward) (2011, background): “Charness (2004) similarly shows reciprocity is lower when wage is determined by a third party.”
Let's Get Personal: An International Examination of the Influence of Communication, Culture and Social Distance on Other Regarding Preferences (2006, neutral): “…attempting to distinguish these two types of models include Blount (1995), Bolton and Ockenfels (1998), Bolton et al. (2000), Bolton et al. (1998), Charness (2004), Charness and Ernan (2002), Charness and Rabin (2002), Cox (2004), Kagel and Wolfe (2001), Kritikos and Bolle (1999), and Offerman…”
A Behavioral Account of the Labor Market: The Role of Fairness Concerns (2008, background): “As we will discuss in the following sections, incorporating these two features of preferences leads to a new understanding of important labor market phenomena.”
Pride and Prejudice: The Human Side of Incentive Theory (2008, background): “The best current interpretation of the evidence is that the worker wants to reciprocate the employer’s favor; see Charness (2004).”
Social Preferences and Strategic Uncertainty: An Experiment on Markets and Contracts (2010, positive): “We use P1 to estimate the subjectspurely distributional preference parameters within the realm of Charness and Rabins (2002, C&R hereafter) model.6 2. In the second phase (P2), subjects are, once again, randomly matched in pairs and are rst asked to choose among four options (within the same choi”
Social distance and reciprocity: An Internet experiment (2007, positive): “While there are several experiments (e.g., Blount, 1995; Charness, 2004; Offerman, 2002) that control for intentions and demonstrate negative reciprocity in the laboratory, few studies offer unconfounded evidence for positive reciprocity in this environment.”
The Combined Effect of Wages and Firm Profit on Employee Effort (2005, background): “Experimental studies (e.g., Fehr et al. 1993, 1996; Fehr and Schmidt 2000; Fehr and Gachter 2001; Hannan et al. 2002; Charness 2004) have found evidence of gift exchange in environments that are able to control for competing explanations of firm and worker behavior.”