Process fairness, outcome fairness, and dynamic consistency: experimental evidence for risk and ambiguity
Literature on fairness preferences distinguishes between outcome fairness, concerning the final allocation of payoffs, and process fairness, concerning the expected allocation of payoffs. It is not obvious, however, whether process fairness can consistently be implemented. Once uncertainty is resolv...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article (Journal) |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
04 February 2017
|
| In: |
Journal of risk and uncertainty
Year: 2016, Volume: 53, Issue: 2/3, Pages: 75-88 |
| ISSN: | 1573-0476 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11166-016-9249-4 |
| Online Access: | Verlag, Volltext: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11166-016-9249-4 Verlag, Volltext: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11166-016-9249-4 
|
| Author Notes: | Stefan T. Trautmann, Gijs van de Kuilen |
| Summary: | Literature on fairness preferences distinguishes between outcome fairness, concerning the final allocation of payoffs, and process fairness, concerning the expected allocation of payoffs. It is not obvious, however, whether process fairness can consistently be implemented. Once uncertainty is resolved and outcomes are determined, the ex-ante procedurally fair decision maker may become consequentialist ex-post, and reconsider her choice on the basis of the observed outcomes. We present experimental evidence on dynamic consistency of social preferences under both known risk and ambiguity. A significant share of people subscribe to process fairness both before and after the resolution of uncertainty. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | Gesehen am 07.02.2017 |
| Physical Description: | Online Resource |
| ISSN: | 1573-0476 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s11166-016-9249-4 |