Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-mqssf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-24T11:59:54.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fairness is intuitive

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Alexander W. Cappelen ,
Ulrik H. Nielsen ,
Bertil Tungodden ,
Jean-Robert Tyran  and
Erik Wengström
Alexander W. Cappelen
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, NHH Norwegian School of Economics, Helleveien 30, 5045 Bergen, Norway
Ulrik H. Nielsen
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, building 26, 1353 København K, Denmark
Bertil Tungodden
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, NHH Norwegian School of Economics, Helleveien 30, 5045 Bergen, Norway
Jean-Robert Tyran
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, building 26, 1353 København K, Denmark Department of Economics, University of Vienna, Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1, 1090 Vienna, Austria
Erik Wengström*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, building 26, 1353 København K, Denmark Department of Economics, Lund University, P.O. Box 7082, 220 07 Lund, Sweden
*
erik.wengstrom@nek.lu.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we provide new evidence showing that fair behavior is intuitive to most people. We find a strong association between a short response time and fair behavior in the dictator game. This association is robust to controls that take account of the fact that response time might be affected by the decision-maker’s cognitive ability and swiftness. The experiment was conducted with a large and heterogeneous sample recruited from the general population in Denmark. We find a striking similarity in the association between response time and fair behavior across groups in the society, which suggests that the predisposition to act fairly is a general human trait.

Keywords

Response timeDictator gameExperimentFairness

JEL classification

C90: General D60: General
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 727 - 740
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Economic Science Association

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-015-9463-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Beauducel, A, Leipmann, D, Horn, S, & Brocke, B (2010). Intelligence structure test, New York: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
Belot, M., Duch, R., & Miller, L. (2015). A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 113, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brañas-Garza, P., Meloso, D., & Miller, L. (2012). Interactive and moral reasoning: A comparative study of response times. University of Bocconi, Working paper N.440. ftp://ftp.igier.unibocconi.it/wp/2012/440.pdf.Google Scholar
Cappelen, A. W., Nygaard, K., Sørensen, E. Ø. Ø., & Tungodden, B. (forthcoming). Social preferences In the lab: A comparison of students and a representative population. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics.Google Scholar
Cappelletti, D, Güth, W, & Ploner, M (2011). Being of two minds: Ultimatum offers under cognitive constraints. Journal of Economic Psychology, 32, 940–950. 10.1016/j.joep.2011.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Guida, S, & Devetag, G (2013). Feature-based choice and similarity perception in normal-form games: An experimental study. Games, 4, 776–794. 10.3390/g4040776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, C (2011). Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics, 14, 583–610. 10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, A. M., Dillon, K.D., & Rand, D. G. (forthcoming). Decision conflict and reflection in social dilemmas: Extreme responses are fast, but not intuitve. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.Google Scholar
Fischbacher, U, Hertwig, R, & Bruhin, A (2013). How to model heterogeniety in costly punishment: Insights from responders’ response time. Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 462–476. 10.1002/bdm.1779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, V, & Mengel, F (2011). Let me sleep on it: Delay reduces rejection rates in ultimatum games. Economics Letters, 111, 113–115. 10.1016/j.econlet.2011.01.025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotito, G, Migheli, M, & Ortona, G (2013). Is cooperation instinctive? Evidence from the response times in a public goods game. Journal of Bioeconomics, 15, 123–133. 10.1007/s10818-012-9141-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, UH, Tyran, J-R, & Wengström, E (2014). Second thoughts on free riding. Economics Letters, 122, 136–139. 10.1016/j.econlet.2013.11.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piovesan, M, & Wengström, E (2009). Fast or fair? A study of response times. Economics Letters, 105, 193–196. 10.1016/j.econlet.2009.07.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rand, DG, Greene, JD, & Nowak, MA (2012). Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 489, 427–430. 10.1038/nature11467CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rand, DG, & Kraft-Todd, GT (2014). Reflection does not undermine self-interested prosociality: Support for the social heuristics hypothesis. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8, 300 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00300CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rand, D. G., & Peysakhovich, A. (forthcoming). Habits of virtue: Creating norms of cooperation and defection in the laboratory. Management Science.Google Scholar
Rand, DG, Peysakhovich, A, Kraft-Todd, GT, Newman, GE, Wurzbacher, O, Nowak, MA, & Greene, JD (2014). Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation. Nature Communications, 5, 3677 10.1038/ncomms4677CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Recalde, M. P., Riedl, A., & Vesterlund, L. (2014). Error prone inference from response time: The case of intuitive generosity. CESifo working paper series 4087, CESifo Group Munich.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, A. (2004). Instinctive and cognitive reasoning: Response times study. The foerder institute for economic research and the Sackler Institute of Economic Studies, Working paper N.9-2004. http://econ.tau.ac.il/papers/foerder/9-2004.pdf.Google Scholar
Rand, DG, Peysakhovich, A, Kraft-Todd, GT, Newman, GE, Wurzbacher, O, Nowak, MA, & Greene, JD (2007). Instinctive and cognitive reasoning: A study of response times. The Economic Journal, 117, 1243–1259. 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02081.xGoogle Scholar
Spilopoulos, L. & Ortmann, A. (2015). The BCD of response time analysis in experimental economics. SSRN. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2401325.Google Scholar
Tinghög, G, Andersson, D, Bonn, C, Böttiger, H, Josephson, C, Lundgren, G, Västfjäll, D, Kirchler, M, & Johannesson, M (2013). Intuition and cooperation reconsidered. Nature, 498, E1–E2. 10.1038/nature12194CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Cappelen et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix: Fairness is intuitive
Download Cappelen et al. supplementary material(File)
File 209.7 KB