Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-lwxm7 Total loading time: 0.259 Render date: 2021-06-20T23:21:11.398Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

ATTRIBUTION OF EXTERNALITIES: AN ECONOMIC APPROACH TO THE KNOBE EFFECT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2014

Verena Utikal
Affiliation:
University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germanyverena.utikal@fau.de
Urs Fischbacher
Affiliation:
University of Konstanz, Germany; Thurgau Institute of Economics, Switzerlandurs.fischbacher@uni-konstanz.de
Corresponding

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
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.

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., 1733. 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: 131144.CrossRefGoogle 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: 207220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J. and Charness, G.. 2000. Hot vs. cold: sequential responses and preference stability in experimental games. Experimental Economics 2: 227238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J. and Sola, C.. 2001. Reference points and negative reciprocity in simple sequential games. Games and Economic Behavior 36: 138157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brosig, J., Weimann, J. and Yang, C.-L.. 2003. The hot versus cold effect in a simple bargaining experiment. Experimental Economics 6: 7590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, T. N. and Mui, V.-L.. 1998. Social influence in the sequential dictator game. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 42: 248265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charness, G. 2004. Attribution and reciprocity in an experimental labor market. Journal of Labor Economics 22: 665688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G. and Levine, D. I.. 2007. Intention and stochastic outcomes: an experimental study. Economic Journal 117 (522): 10511072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G. and Rabin, M.. 2002. Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics 117: 817869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G. and Rabin, M.. 2005. Expressed preferences and behavior in experimental games. Games and Economic Behavior 53: 151169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. C. and Deck, C. A.. 2005. On the nature of reciprocal motives. Economic Inquiry 43: 623635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croson, R. and Konow, J.. 2009. Social preferences and moral biases. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 69: 201212.CrossRefGoogle 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: 268298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A. and Fischbacher, U.. 2006. A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior 54: 293315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A. and Kosfeld, M.. 2006. The hidden costs of control. American Economic Review 96: 16111630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U.. 2003. On the nature of fair behavior. Economic Inquiry 41: 2026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U.. 2008. Testing theories of fairness-intentions matter. Games and Economic Behavior 62: 287303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U. 2007. Z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics 10: 171178.CrossRefGoogle 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: 161169.CrossRefGoogle 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: 509532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knobe, J. 2003. Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis 63: 190193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knobe, J. 2004. Intention, intentional action and moral considerations. Analysis 64: 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knobe, J. 2006. The concept of intentional action: a case study in the uses of folk psychology. Philosophical Studies 130: 203231.CrossRefGoogle 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: 113132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kübler, D. and Müller, W.. 2002. Simultaneous and sequential price competition in heterogeneous duopoly markets: experimental evidence. International Journal of Industrial Organization 20: 14371460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, A. M., Knobe, J. and Cohen, A.. 2006. Acting intentionally and the side-effect effect. Psychological Science 17: 421427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levine, D. K. 1998. Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Review of Economic Dynamics 1: 593622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, E. 2008. The folk concept of intentional action: philosophical and experimental issues. Mind and Language 23: 165189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallon, R. 2008. Knobe versus Machery: testing the trade-off hypothesis. Mind and Language 23: 247255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, H. J. 2005. Intentional action and intending: recent empirical studies. Philosophical Psychology 18: 737748.CrossRefGoogle 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: 399405.Google Scholar
Nelson, W. R. Jr. 2002. Equity or intention: it is the thought that counts. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 48: 423430.CrossRefGoogle 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: 243250.Google Scholar
Nichols, S. and Ulatowski, J.. 2008. Intuitions and individual differences: the Knobe effect revisited. Mind and Language 22: 346365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Offerman, T. 2002. Hurting hurts more than helping helps. European Economic Review 46: 14231437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, D. and Knobe, J.. 2009. The pervasive impact of moral judgment. Mind and Language 24: 586604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabin, M. 1993. Incorporating fairness into game-theory and economics. American Economic Review 83: 12811302.Google Scholar
Rand, D. G., Dreber, A., Ellingsen, T., Fudenberg, D. and Nowak, M. A.. 2009. Positive interactions promote public cooperation. Science 325 (5945): 12721275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schotter, A., Weigelt, K. and Wilson, C.. 1994. A laboratory investigation of multiperson rationality and presentation effects. Games and Economic Behaviour 6: 445468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, R. 1967. Die strategiemethode zur erforschung des eingeschränkt rationalen verhaltens im rahmen eines oligopolexperimentes. In Beiträge zur Experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung, ed. Sauermann, H., 136168. 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: 316321.CrossRefGoogle 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: 2450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

ATTRIBUTION OF EXTERNALITIES: AN ECONOMIC APPROACH TO THE KNOBE EFFECT
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

ATTRIBUTION OF EXTERNALITIES: AN ECONOMIC APPROACH TO THE KNOBE EFFECT
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

ATTRIBUTION OF EXTERNALITIES: AN ECONOMIC APPROACH TO THE KNOBE EFFECT
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *