Fair Procedures: Evidence from Games Involving Lotteries*

By Gary E. Bolton, Jordi Brandts, Axel Ockenfels. 2005

462 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, General Decision Sciences, Safety Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ad98909c6c5f5b18c6cedc1f110f7a61ba4533de

How researchers see this paper

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

In Clinical Psychology

1. Stefan T. Trautmann
2. John M. Spraggon
3. Robert J. Oxoby
4. Axel Ockenfels
5. Gary E. Bolton
6. Darren W. Dahl

In General Decision Sciences

1. Michal Krawczyk
2. Stefan T. Trautmann
3. Fabrice Le Lec
4. Andreas Lange
5. Robert J. Oxoby
6. John M. Spraggon
7. Gary E. Bolton
8. Axel Ockenfels

In Safety Research

1. Michal Krawczyk
2. Stefan T. Trautmann
3. Andreas Lange
4. Fabrice Le Lec
5. Robert J. Oxoby
6. John M. Spraggon
7. Axel Ockenfels
8. Gary E. Bolton

Citations in the corpus

• Mine and yours: Property rights in dictator games (2008, methodology): “2 Similar results are obtained by Bolton et al. (2005) and Gantner et al.”
• More than Thirty Years of Ultimatum Bargaining Experiments: Motives, Variations, and a Survey of the Recent Literature (2013, unknown): “Comparing deliberate play and random moves, Bolton et al. (2005) use specific versions of a mini-ultimatum game to study the impact of procedural fairness versus allocation fairness.”
• Beyond Outcomes: Measuring Procedural Utility (2002, background): “7 For an experimental application see Bolton et al. (2000). domestic violence, Lind and Tyler (1988) find that recidivism rates are lower when accused people are respectfully treated by arresting officers.”
• A stress test of fairness measures in models of social utility (2005, background): “For studies done in the normal form, as well as further discussion on this issue, see Bolton, Brandts and Ockenfels (1998, 2003) .”
• Consumer Reaction to Unearned Preferential Treatment (2013, background): “In these types of promotions, there is clearly a reason for the preferential treatment (i.e., random draw), which most people perceive to be fair (Bolton, Brandts, and Ockenfels 2005; Van den Bos et al. 1997), but it is still unearned.”
• Dictating the Risk: Experimental Evidence on Giving in Risky Environments (2013, background): “With this, we contribute to a large experimental and behavioural literature that investigates the potential social behaviour of subjects: dictator, gift exchange, the public good and other games show that some subjects are willing to transfer money to other players without receiving any material ben”
• Behaving as Expected: Public Information and Fairness Norms (2010, unknown): “Equity and equality considerations may coexist, and randomization is often perceived as a fair allocation mechanism (Bolton et al., 2005), as when we use a lottery to allocate transplant organs.”
• ‘Give me a chance!’ An experiment in social decision under risk (2010, background): “Bolton et al. (2005) provide evidence of other-regarding preference in the presence of risk, as subjects played the Ultimatum Game with chances to win some prize: second players tended to reject proposals when offered overly low chances to win.”