Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T13:14:10.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ATTRIBUTION OF EXTERNALITIES: AN ECONOMIC APPROACH TO THE KNOBE EFFECT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2014

Verena Utikal  and
Urs Fischbacher
Verena Utikal
Affiliation:
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, [email protected]
Urs Fischbacher
Affiliation:
University of Konstanz, Germany; Thurgau Institute of Economics, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A series of studies in experimental philosophy have revealed that people blame others for foreseen negative side effects but do not praise them for foreseen positive ones. In order to challenge this idea, also called the Knobe effect, we develop a laboratory experiment using monetary incentives. In a game-theoretic framework we formalize the two vignettes in a neutral way, which means that we abstain from the use of any specific language terms and can easily control and vary the economic parameters of the situation. We confirm the Knobe effect in one situation and present situations in which the effect vanishes or even reverses. Our results are in line with a theoretical approach where the assessment of intention is not based on the action itself but on the underlying motive – as modelled in Levine (1998).

Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , July 2014 , pp. 215 - 240
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, F. and Steadman, A.. 2007. Folk concepts, surveys, and intentional action. In Intentionality, Deliberation, and Autonomy: The Action-Theoretic Basis of Practical Philosophy, ed. Lumer, C. and Nannini, S., 17–33. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Blount, S. 1995. When social outcomes aren't fair – the effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 63: 131–144.Google Scholar
Bolton, G. E., Brandts, J. and Ockenfels, A.. 1998. Measuring motivations for the reciprocal responses observed in a simple dilemma game. Experimental Economics 1: 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J. and Charness, G.. 2000. Hot vs. cold: sequential responses and preference stability in experimental games. Experimental Economics 2: 227–238.Google Scholar
Brandts, J. and Sola, C.. 2001. Reference points and negative reciprocity in simple sequential games. Games and Economic Behavior 36: 138–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brosig, J., Weimann, J. and Yang, C.-L.. 2003. The hot versus cold effect in a simple bargaining experiment. Experimental Economics 6: 75–90.Google Scholar
Cason, T. N. and Mui, V.-L.. 1998. Social influence in the sequential dictator game. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 42: 248–265.Google Scholar
Charness, G. 2004. Attribution and reciprocity in an experimental labor market. Journal of Labor Economics 22: 665–688.Google Scholar
Charness, G. and Levine, D. I.. 2007. Intention and stochastic outcomes: an experimental study. Economic Journal 117 (522): 1051–1072.Google Scholar
Charness, G. and Rabin, M.. 2002. Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117: 817–869.Google Scholar
Charness, G. and Rabin, M.. 2005. Expressed preferences and behavior in experimental games. Games and Economic Behavior 53: 151–169.Google Scholar
Cox, J. C. and Deck, C. A.. 2005. On the nature of reciprocal motives. Economic Inquiry 43: 623–635.Google Scholar
Croson, R. and Konow, J.. 2009. Social preferences and moral biases. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 69: 201–212.Google Scholar
Cushman, F. 2007. The effect of moral judgment on causal and intentional attribution: what we say, or how we think. Unpublished manuscript. Harvard University.Google Scholar
Dufwenberg, M. and Kirchsteiger, G.. 2004. A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior 47: 268–298.Google Scholar
Falk, A. and Fischbacher, U.. 2006. A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior 54: 293–315.Google Scholar
Falk, A. and Kosfeld, M.. 2006. The hidden costs of control. American Economic Review 96: 1611–1630.Google Scholar
Falk, A., Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U.. 2003. On the nature of fair behavior. Economic Inquiry 41: 20–26.Google Scholar
Falk, A., Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U.. 2008. Testing theories of fairness-intentions matter. Games and Economic Behavior 62: 287–303.Google Scholar
Fischbacher, U. 2007. Z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics 10: 171–178.Google Scholar
Fischbacher, U. and Schudy, S.. Forthcoming. Reciprocity and resistance to comprehensive reform. Public Choice.Google Scholar
Greiner, B. 2004. The Online Recruitment System Orsee 2.0 – A Guide for the Organization of Experiments in Economics. Department of Economics, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Güth, W., Huck, S. and Muller, W.. 2001. The relevance of equal splits in ultimatum games. Games and Economic Behavior 37: 161–169.Google Scholar
Houser, D., Xiao, E., McCabe, K. and Smith, V.. 2008. When punishment fails: research on sanctions, intentions and non-cooperation. Games and Economic Behavior 62: 509–532.Google Scholar
Knobe, J. 2003. Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis 63: 190–193.Google Scholar
Knobe, J. 2004. Intention, intentional action and moral considerations. Analysis 64: 181–187.Google Scholar
Knobe, J. 2006. The concept of intentional action: a case study in the uses of folk psychology. Philosophical Studies 130: 203–231.Google Scholar
Knobe, J. and Burra, A.. 2006. The folk concepts of intention and intentional action: a cross-cultural study. Journal of Cognition and Cultures 6: 113–132.Google Scholar
Kübler, D. and Müller, W.. 2002. Simultaneous and sequential price competition in heterogeneous duopoly markets: experimental evidence. International Journal of Industrial Organization 20: 1437–1460.Google Scholar
Leslie, A. M., Knobe, J. and Cohen, A.. 2006. Acting intentionally and the side-effect effect. Psychological Science 17: 421–427.Google Scholar
Levine, D. K. 1998. Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Review of Economic Dynamics 1: 593–622.Google Scholar
Machery, E. 2008. The folk concept of intentional action: philosophical and experimental issues. Mind and Language 23: 165–189.Google Scholar
Mallon, R. 2008. Knobe versus Machery: testing the trade-off hypothesis. Mind and Language 23: 247–255.Google Scholar
McCann, H. J. 2005. Intentional action and intending: recent empirical studies. Philosophical Psychology 18: 737–748.Google Scholar
McLeish, K. N. and Oxoby, R. J.. 2004. Sequential decision and strategy vector methods in ultimatum bargaining: evidence on the strength of other-regarding behavior. Economics Letters 84: 399–405.Google Scholar
Nelson, W. R. Jr. 2002. Equity or intention: it is the thought that counts. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 48: 423–430.Google Scholar
Neugebauer, T., Poulsen, A. and Schram, A. J. H. C.. 2008. Fairness and reciprocity in the hawk-dove game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 66: 243–250.Google Scholar
Nichols, S. and Ulatowski, J.. 2008. Intuitions and individual differences: the Knobe effect revisited. Mind and Language 22: 346–365.Google Scholar
Offerman, T. 2002. Hurting hurts more than helping helps. European Economic Review 46: 1423–1437.Google Scholar
Pettit, D. and Knobe, J.. 2009. The pervasive impact of moral judgment. Mind and Language 24: 586–604.Google Scholar
Rabin, M. 1993. Incorporating fairness into game-theory and economics. American Economic Review 83: 1281–1302.Google Scholar
Rand, D. G., Dreber, A., Ellingsen, T., Fudenberg, D. and Nowak, M. A.. 2009. Positive interactions promote public cooperation. Science 325 (5945): 1272–1275.Google Scholar
Schotter, A., Weigelt, K. and Wilson, C.. 1994. A laboratory investigation of multiperson rationality and presentation effects. Games and Economic Behaviour 6: 445–468.Google Scholar
Selten, R. 1967. Die strategiemethode zur erforschung des eingeschränkt rationalen verhaltens im rahmen eines oligopolexperimentes. In Beiträge zur Experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung, ed. Sauermann, H., 136–168. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).Google Scholar
Solnick, S. J. 2007. Cash and alternate methods of accounting in an experimental game. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 62: 316–321.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, D., Ditto, P. H. and Pizarro, D. A.. 2007. Different moral values produce different judgments of intentional action. Unpublished manuscript, University of California-Irvine.Google Scholar
Wright, J. C. and Bengson, J.. 2009. Asymmetries in judgments of responsibility and intentional action. Mind and Language 24: 24–50.Google Scholar