Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T16:48:14.557Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expectations do not affect punishment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Lucas C. Coffman
Lucas C. Coffman*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Harvard University, 1805 Cambridge Street, 02138 Cambridge, MA, USA
*
e-mail: coffman@fas.harvard.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Expectations-based reference dependence has been shown to be important across a variety of contexts in Psychology and Economics. Do expectations play a role in moral judgment? The higher our beliefs are relative to an outcome, do we punish more harshly? This paper reports a series of experiments investigating the hypothesis that expectations as reference points per se affect punishment. The experimental design varies the expectation the Punisher holds just before she learns what actually occurred. In tandem with the manipulation, expectations are shown to vary significantly and substantially. However, punishment does not respond to these exogenous changes in expectations. After 17 sessions, 295 Punishers, and six experimental setups, expectations are shown not to affect punishment in any systematic way.

Keywords

ExperimentsReference dependenceExpectationsPunishmentMorality

JEL classification

D63: Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement A13: Relation of Economics to Social Values C92: Laboratory, Group Behavior
Type
Original Paper
Information
Journal of the Economic Science Association , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , December 2019 , pp. 182 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © Economic Science Association 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-019-00079-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Abeler, Johannes, Falk, Armin, Goette, Lorenz, Huffman, David. (2011). Reference points and effort provision. American Economic Review, 101(2), 470–92. 10.1257/aer.101.2.470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cerulli-Harms, Annette, Goette, Lorenz, Sprenger, Charles. (2019). Randomizing Endowments: An Experimental Study of Rational Expectations and Reference-Dependent Preferences. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 11(1), 185–207.Google Scholar
Ciaramelli, Elisa, Muccioli, Michela, Làdavas, Elisabetta, di Pellegrino, Giuseppe. (2007). Selective Deficit in Personal Moral Judgment Following Damage to Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2(2), 84–92. 10.1093/scan/nsm001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fehr, Ernst, Fischbacher, Urs. (2004). Third Party Punishment and Social Norms. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(2), 63–87. 10.1016/S1090-5138(04)00005-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, Urs. (1999). “z-Tree-Zurich Toolbox for Readymade Economic Experiments: Experimenter’s Manual,” Working paper/Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, 21.Google Scholar
Greene, Joshua D., Brian Sommerville, R., Nystrom, Leigh E., Darley, John M., Cohen, Jonathan D. (2001). An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108. 10.1126/science.1062872CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, Joshua D., Brian Sommerville, R., Nystrom, Leigh E., Darley, John M., Cohen, Jonathan D., Morelli, Sylvia A., Lowenberg, Kelly. (2008). Cognitive Load Selectively Interferes With Utilitarian Moral Judgment. Cognition, 107(3), 1144–1154. 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.11.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haidt, Jonathan. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4),814. 10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haidt, Jonathan, Bjorklund, Fredrik, & Murphy, Scott. (2000). “Moral Dumbfounding: When Intuition Finds no Reason,” Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia.Google Scholar
Heffetz, Ori, List, John A. (2014). Is the Endowment Effect an Expectations Effect? Journal of the European Economic Association, 12(5), 1396–1422. 10.1111/jeea.12084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Tversky, Amos. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions under Risk. Econometrica, 47, 278. 10.2307/1914185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Tversky, Amos, Frederick, Shane. (2002). Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, 49, 81.Google Scholar
Koenigs, Michael, Young, Liane, Adolphs, Ralph, Tranel, Daniel, Cushman, Fiery, Hauser, Marc, Damasio, Antonio. (2007). Damage to the Prefrontal Cortex Increases Utilitarian Moral Judgements. Nature, 446(7138),908. 10.1038/nature05631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köszegi, Botond, Rabin, Matthew. (2006). A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1133–1165.Google Scholar
Köszegi, Botond, Rabin, Matthew. (2007). Reference-Dependent Risk Attitudes. American Economic Review, 97(4), 1047–1073. 10.1257/aer.97.4.1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köszegi, Botond, Rabin, Matthew. (2009). Reference-Dependent Consumption Plans. American Economic Review, 99(3), 909–36. 10.1257/aer.99.3.909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marzilli-Ericson, Keith M., Fuster, Andreas. (2011). Expectations as endowments: Evidence on reference-dependent preferences from exchange and valuation experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1879–1907. 10.1093/qje/qjr034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillutla, Madan M., Keith Murnighan, J. (1996). Unfairness, Anger, and Spite: Emotional Rejections of Ultimatum Offers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(3), 208–224. 10.1006/obhd.1996.0100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdesolo, Piercarlo, DeSteno, David. (2006). Manipulations of Emotional Context Shape Moral Judgment. Psychological Science, 17(6),476. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01731.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Coffman supplementary material

Coffman supplementary material
Download Coffman supplementary material(File)
File 145.7 KB