Advertisement

Journal of the Economic Science Association

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 99–109 | Cite as

Effects of gain-loss frames on advantageous inequality aversion

  • Kene Boun My
  • Nicolas Lampach
  • Mathieu Lefebvre
  • Jacopo Magnani
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper studies individuals’ preference for reducing advantageous inequality in the distribution of gains and losses. Combining the inequality aversion model of Fehr and Schmidt (Q J Econ 114(3):817–868, 1999) with loss aversion à la Kahneman and Tversky (Econom J Econom Soc:263–291, 1979), we predict the relative dislike for advantageous inequality is lower when outcomes are framed as losses than when outcomes are framed as gains. We test this prediction using data from two modified dictator game experiments. Consistent with the model, we find that the amount of payoff that subjects are willing to sacrifice to increase the net payoff of others and reduce advantageous inequality is smaller under a loss frame than under a gain frame. The results also show that women are more inequality averse than men in both gains and losses.

Keywords

Social preferences Inequality aversion Modified dictator game Loss aversion Laboratory experiment 

JEL Classifications

C70 C91 D63 

Supplementary material

40881_2018_57_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (118 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 118 KB)
40881_2018_57_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (1.4 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (pdf 1410 KB)

References

  1. Abeler, J., Falk, A., Goette, L., & Huffman, D. (2011). Reference points and effort provision. The American Economic Review, 101(2), 470–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 293–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Attanasi, G., Boun My, K., Georgantzis, N., & Ginés, M. (2016). Strategic altruism as complementarity-building investment (in preparation).Google Scholar
  4. Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. (1995). Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beranek, B., Cubitt, R., & Gächter, S. (2015). Stated and revealed inequality aversion in three subject pools. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(1), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanco, M., Engelmann, D., & Normann, H. T. (2011). A within-subject analysis of other-regarding preferences. Games and Economic Behavior, 72(2), 321–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchan, N., Croson, R., Johnson, E., & Wu, G. (2005). Gain and loss ultimatums. Advances in Applied Microeconomics, vol. 13, Chapter 3 (pp. 1–23). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cameron, C., & Miller, D. (2015). A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 317–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carnevale, P. (2008). Positive affect and decision frame in negotiation. Group Decision Negotiation, 17(1), 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Dreu, C. (1994). Effects of gain-loss frames on satisfaction with self-other outcome differences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 497–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Dreu, C., Carnevale, P., Emans, B., & Van De Vliert, E. (1994). Effects of gain-loss frames in negotiation: Loss aversion, mismatching, and frame adoption. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dickinson, D. L., & Tiefenthaler, J. (2002). What is fair? Experimental evidence. Southern Economic Journal, 69(2), 414–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dufwenberg, M., & Astri, M. (2005). Gender composition in teams. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 61, 50–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). The economics of fairness, reciprocity and altruism—experimental evidence and new theories. Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, 1, 615–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fehr, S., & Schmidt, K. (1999). A theory of fairness competition and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greiner, B. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(1), 114–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lampach, N., Boun My, K., & Spaeter, S. (2016). Risk, ambiguity and efficient liability rules: An experiment. Working Papers of BETA 2016-30. Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg. www.beta-umr7522.fr/productions/publications/2016/2016-29.pdf.
  21. Leliveld, M., van Beest, I., van Dijk, E., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2009). Understanding the influence of outcome valence in bargaining: A study on fairness accessibility, norms, and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 505–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loewenstein, G., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 426–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Neumann, T., Schosser, S., & Vogt, B. (2017). Ultimatum bargaining over losses and gains—an experimental comparison. Social Science Research, 67, 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Poppe, M., & Valkenberg, H. (1993). Effects of gain versus loss and certain versus probable outcomes on social value orientations. European Review of Social Psychology, 33(3), 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rabin, M. (2000). Risk aversion and expected-utility theory: A calibration theorem. Econometrica, 68(5), 1281–1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schweitzer, E., & DeChruch, L. (2001). Linking frames in negotiations: Gains, losses and conflict frame adoption. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(2), 100–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Selten, R., & Ockenfels, A. (1998). An experimental solidarity game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 34(4), 517–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Walasek, L., Mullett, T.L., & Stewart, N. (2018). A meta-analysis of loss aversion in risky contexts. Working paper. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3189088 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3189088 (Available at SSRN).
  31. Zhou, X., & Wu, Y. (2011). Sharing losses and sharing gains: Increased demand for fairness under adversity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 582–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BETA, CNRS and University of StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  2. 2.Centre for Legal Theory and Empirical JurisprudenceKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.BETA, University of StrasbourgStrasbourgFrance
  4. 4.Division of Social ScienceNew York University Abu DhabiSaadiyat IslandUnited Arab Emirates

Personalised recommendations