Skip to main content

Keeping Promises and Contracts

Encyclopedia of Law and Economics
  • 259 Accesses

Abstract

There are reasons for individuals to keep contractual promises beyond legal remedies and reputational concerns. This entry reviews the leading explanations of promise-keeping behavior as well as recent evidence for the latter as collected in laboratory experiments. In the end, it discusses avenues for future research and recent applications of the results collected so far for the design of contracts and their legal enforcement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Balliet D (2010) Communication and cooperation in social dilemmas: a meta-analytic review. J Confl Resolut 54:39–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battigalli P, Dufwenberg M (2007) Guilt in games. Am Econ Rev 97:170–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battigalli P, Dufwenberg M (2009) Dynamic psychological games. J Econ Theory 144:1–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bénabou R, Tirole J (2011) Identity, morals, and taboos: beliefs as assets. Q J Econ 126:805–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg J, Dickhaut J, McCabe K (1995) Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games Econ Behav 10:122–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohnet I, Frey B, Huck S (2001) More order with less law: on contract enforcement, trust, and crowding. Am Polit Sci Rev 95:131–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks R, Stremitzer A, Tontrup S (2012) Framing contracts: why loss framing increases effort. J Inst Theor Econ 168:62–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charness G, Dufwenberg M (2006) Promises and partnerships. Econometrica 74:1579–1601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charness G, Dufwenberg M (2011) Participation. Am Econ Rev 101:1213–1239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charness G, Du N, Yang C, Yao L (2013) Promises in contract design. Eur Econ Rev 64:194–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford V, Sobel J (1982) Strategic information transmission. Econometrica 50(1431):1452

    Google Scholar 

  • Depoorter B, Tontrup S (2012) How law frames moral intuitions: the expressive effect of specific performance. Ariz Law Rev 54:673

    Google Scholar 

  • Ederer F, Stremitzer A (2016) Promises and expectations. Cowles foundation discussion paper No. 1931

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellingsen T, Johanesson M (2004) Promises, threats and fairness. Econ J 114:397–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell J, Rabin M (1996) Cheap talk. J Econ Perspect 10:103–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fried C (1981) Contract as promise. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoeppner S, Freund L, Depoorter B (2017) The moral-hazard effect of liquidated damages: an experiment on contract remedies. J Institutional and Theoretical Econ 173:84–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen M, Kozlovskaya M (2016) A representation theorem for guilt aversion. J Econ Behav Organ 125:148–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson N, Mislin A (2011) Trust games: a meta-analysis. J Econ Psychol 32:865–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawagoe T, Narita Y (2014) Guilt aversion revisited: an experimental test of a new model. J Econ Behav Organ 102:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miettinen T (2013) Promises and conventions – an approach to pre-play agreements. Games Econ Behav 80:68–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E, Walker J, Gardner R (1992) Covenants with and without a sword: self-governance is possible. Am Polit Sci Rev 86:404–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross L (1977) The “false consensus effect”: an egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. J Exp Soc Psychol 13:279–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sally D (1995) Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: a meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992. Ration Soc 7:58–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavell S (1980) Damage measures for breach of contract. Bell J Econ 11:466–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shavell S (1984) The design of contracts and damages for breach. Q J Econ 99:121–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone R, Stremitzer A (2016) Promises, reliance, and psychological lock-in. UCLA School of Law, Law & Economics Research Paper No. 15–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanberg C (2008) Why do people keep their promises? An experimental test of two explanations. Econometrica 76:1467–1480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson-Ryan T (2010) Do liquidated damages encourage breach? A psychological experiment. Mich Law Rev 108:633–671

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson-Ryan T (2012) Transferring trust: reciprocity norms and assignment of contract. J Empir Leg Stud 9:511–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sergio Mittlaender .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry

Mittlaender, S. (2017). Keeping Promises and Contracts. In: Marciano, A., Ramello, G. (eds) Encyclopedia of Law and Economics. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_696-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_696-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7883-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7883-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Economics and FinanceReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Chapter history

  1. Latest

    Keeping Promises and Contracts
    Published:
    14 October 2021

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_696-2

  2. Original

    Keeping Promises and Contracts
    Published:
    21 August 2017

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7883-6_696-1