Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-w45k2 Total loading time: 0.963 Render date: 2023-02-01T22:07:51.985Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Fair is Fair: social Preferences and reciprocity in international Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2015

Get access


Behavioral economics has shown that people often diverge from classical assumptions about self-interested behavior: they have social preferences and are concerned about issues of fairness and reciprocity. Social psychologists show that these preferences vary across actors, with some displaying more prosocial value orientations than others. Integrating a laboratory bargaining experiment with original archival research on Anglo-French and Franco-German diplomacy during the interwar period, the authors show how fairness and reciprocity matter in social interactions. That prosocials do not exploit their bargaining leverage to the degree that proselfs do helps explain why some pairs of actors are better able to avoid bargaining failure than others. In the face of consistent egoism on the part of negotiating partners, however, prosocials engage in negative reciprocity and adopt the same behaviors as proselfs.

Research Article
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 2015 

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.)


Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books.Google ScholarPubMed
Barnea, Marina F., and Schwartz, Shalom H.. 1998. “Values and Voting.” Political Psychology 19, no. 1: 1740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beersma, Bianca, and De Dreu, Carsten K. W.. 1999. “Negotiation Processes and Outcomes in Prosocially and Egoistically Motivated Groups.” International Journal of Conflict Management 10, no. 4: 385402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boettcher, William A. III,. 1995. “Context, Methods, Numbers, and Words: Prospect Theory in International Relations.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 39, no. 3: 561–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesquita, Bueno de, Bruce, , and Lalman, David. 1992. War and Reason. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mesquita, Bueno de, Bruce, , and Siverson, Randolph M.. 1995. “War and the Survival of Political Leaders: A Comparative Study of Regime Types and Political Accountability.” American Political Science Review 89, no. 4: 841–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, John T., and Petty, Richard E.. 1982. “The Need for Cognition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42, no. 1: 116–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, John T., Petty, Richard E., Feinstein, Jeffrey A., and Jarvis, W. Blair G.. 1996. “Dispositional Differences in Cognitive Motivation: The Life and Times of Individuals Varying in Need for Cognition.” Psychological Bulletin 119, no. 2: 197253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, Colin. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Camerer, Colin F., Loewenstein, George, and Rabin, Matthew. 2011. Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Caprara, Gian Vittorio, Barbaranelli, Claudio, and Zimbardo, Philip G.. 1999. “Personality Profiles and Political Parties.” Political Psychology 20, no. 1: 175–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlton, David. 1970. MacDonald versus Henderson: The Foreign Policy of the Second Labour Government. London, UK: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnevale, Peter J. D., and Lawler, Edward J.. 1986. “Time Pressure and the Development of Integrative Agreements in Bilateral Negotiations.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 30, no. 4: 636–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cremer, David, and Lange, Paul A. M. Van. 2001. “Why Prosocials Exhibit Greater Cooperation Than Proselfs: The Roles of Social Responsibility and Reciprocity.” European Journal of Personality 15, no. 51: s5–s18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, Carsten K. W., and Boles, Terry L.. 1998. “Share and Share Alike or Winner Take All? the Infuence of Social Value Orientation upon Choice and Recall of Negotiation Heuristics.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76, no. 3: 253–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Dreu, Carsten K. W., and Kleef, Gerben A. Van. 2004. “The Infuence of Power on the Information Search, Impression Formation, and Demands in Negotiation.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40, no. 3: 303–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, Carsten K. W., and Lange, Paul A. M. Van. 1995. “The Impact of Social Value Orientations on Negotiator Cognition and Behavior.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21, no. 11: 1178–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, Morton. 1960. “The Effect of Motivational Orientation upon Trust and Suspicion.” Human Relations 13, no. 2: 123–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Kam, Cindy D.. 2011. “Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the ‘Narrow Data Base.’” in Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur, eds., Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. new York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, Armin, Stephan Meier, and Christian Zehnder. 2013. “Do Lab Experiments Misrepresent Social Preferences? The Case of Self-Selected Student Samples.” Journal of the European Economic Association 11, no. 4: 839–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, James. 1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War.” International Organization 49, no. 3: 379414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, Ernst, and Fischbacher, Urs. 2002. “Why Social Preferences Matter: The Impact of Non-selfish Motives on Competition, Cooperation and Incentives.” Economic Journal 112, no. 478: C1C33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giebels, Ellen, Dreu, Carsten K. W. De, and Vliert, Evert Van de. 2000. “Interdependence in Negotiation: Effects of Exit Options and Social Motive on Distributive and Integrative Negotiation.” European Journal of Social Psychology 30, no. 2: 255–72.3.0.CO;2-7>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, Jack L., and Posner, Eric A.. 2005. The Limits of International Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Michael R. 1969. Confict and Consensus in Labour’s Foreign Policy, 1914–1965. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, Jesse, Haidt, Jonathan, and Nosek, Brian A.. 2009. “Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96, no. 5: 1029–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grieco, Joseph M., Gelpi, Christopher F., and Warren, T. Camber. 2009. “When Preferences and Commitments Collide: The Effect of Relative Partisan Shifts on International Treaty Compliance.” International Organization 63, no. 2: 341–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güth, Werner, Schmittberger, Rolf, and Schwarze, Bernd. 1982. “An Experimental Analysis of Ultimatum Bargaining.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3, no. 4: 367–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Hines. 1978. “Lloyd George, Briand and the Failure of the Anglo-French Entente.” Journal of Modern History 50, no. 2 (on Demand Supplement): D1121D1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, Richard. 1988. “The Empirical Challenge of the Cognitive Revolution: a Strategy for Drawing Inferences about Perceptions.” International Studies Quarterly 32, no. 2: 175203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, Richard K., Tetlock, Philip E., and Visser, Penny S.. 1999. “Mass Public Decisions to Go to War: a Cognitive-Interactionist Framework.” American Political Science Review 93, no. 3: 553–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, and Flanagan, Scott. 1987. “Value Change in Industrial Societies.” American Political Science Review 81, no. 4: 1289–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Jon. 1972. Locarno Diplomacy: Germany and the West, 1925–1929. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Janoff-Bulman, Ronnie, Sheikh, Sana, and Baldacci, Kate G.. 2007. “Mapping Moral Motives: Approach, Avoidance and Political Orientation.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44, no. 4: 1091–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kanagaretnam, Kiridaran, Mestelman, Stuart, Nainar, Khalid, and Shehata, Mohamed. 2009. “The Impact of Social Value Orientation and Risk Attitudes on trust and Reciprocity.” Journal of Economic Psychology 30, no. 3: 368–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapstein, Ethan B. 2008. “Fairness Considerations in World Politics: Lessons from International Trade Negotiations.” Political Science Quarterly 123, no. 2: 229–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffmann, Chaim D., and Pape, Robert A.. 1999. “Explaining Costly International Moral Action: Britain’s Sixty-Year Campaign against the Atlantic Slave Trade.” International Organization 53, no. 4: 631–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeton, Edward D. 1987. Briand’s Locarno Policy: French Economics, Politics and Diplomacy, 1925–1929. new York, N.Y.: Garland.Google Scholar
Kelley, Harold H., and Stahelski, Anthony J.. 1970. “Social Interaction Basis of Cooperators’ and Competitors’ Beliefs about Others.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 16, no. 1: 6691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Harold H., and Thibaut, John W.. 1978. Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. new York, N.Y.: Wiley.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1986. “Reciprocity in International Relations.” International Organization 40, no. 1: 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kertzer, Joshua D., and McGraw, Kathleen M.. 2012. “Folk Realism: Testing the Microfoundations of Realism in Ordinary Citizens.” International Studies Quarterly 56, no. 2: 245–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kertzer, Joshua D., Powers, Kathleen, Rathbun, Brian C., and Iyer, Ravi. 2014. “Moral Support: How Moral Values Shape Foreign Policy Preferences.” Journal of Politics 76, no. 3: 825–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kertzer, Joshua D., and Rathbun, Brian C.. 2015. Supplementary material. Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert, and Staf Hellemans. 1989. “The Left-right Semantics and the New Politics Cleavage.” Comparative Political Studies 23, no. 2: 210–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koremenos, Barbara, Lipson, Charles, and Snidal, Duncan. 2001. “The Rational Design of International Institutions.” International Organization 55, no. 4: 761–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhlman, D. Michael, and Marshello, Alfred F.. 1975. “Individual Differences in Game Motivation as Moderators of Preprogrammed Strategy Effects in Prisoner’s Dilemma.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32, no. 5: 922–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhlman, D. Michael, and Wimberley, David L.. 1976. “Expectations of Choice Behavior Held by Cooperators, Competitors, and Individualists Across Four Classes of Experimental Games.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34, no. 1: 6981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, Jack s. 1997. “Prospect Theory, Rational Choice, and International Relations.” International Studies Quarterly 41, no. 1: 87112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebrand, , Wim, B. G., Jansen, Ronald W. t. L., Rijken, Victor M., and Suhre, Cor J. M.. 1986. “Might over Morality: Social Values and the Perception of other Players in Experimental Games.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22, no. 3: 203–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipset, , Seymour, M., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Barton, Allen H., and Linz, Juan. 1954. “The Psychology of Voting: An Analysis of Political Behavior.” In Lindzey, Gardner, ed., Handbook of Social Psychology. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
List, John A. 2009. “Social Preferences: Some Thoughts From the Field.” Annual Review of Economics 1, no. 1: 563–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumsdaine, David Halloran. 1993. Moral Vision in International Politics: The Foreign Aid Regime, 1949–1989. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
March, , James, G., and Olsen, Johan P.. 1998. “The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders.” International Organization 52, no. 4: 943–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, Sally. 1982. “Ménage à Trois: The Negotiations for an Anglo-French-Belgian Alliance in 1922.” International History Review 4, no. 4: 524–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClintock, Charles G. 1972. “Social Motivation: A Set of Propositions.” Behavioral Science 17, no. 5: 438–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClintock, Charles G., and Liebrand, Wim B.. 1988. “Role of Interdependence Structure, Individual Value Orientation, and Another’s Strategy in Social Decision Making: A Transformational Analysis.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55, no. 3: 396409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 1998. Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, David M., and Brewer, Marilynn B.. 1983. “Solving Social Dilemmas: A Review.” Review of Personality and Social Psychology 4: 1144.Google Scholar
Naylor, John F. 1969. Labour’s International Policy: The Labour Party in the 1930s. London, UK: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Olekalns, Mara, Philip L. Smith, and Rachael Kibby. 1996. “Social Value Orientations and Negotiator Outcomes.” European Journal of Social Psychology 26, no. 2: 299313.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oye, Kenneth A. 1985. “Explaining Cooperation under Anarchy: Hypotheses and Strategies.” World Politics 38 (October), no. 1: 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piurko, Yuval, Schwartz, Shalom H., and Davidov, Eldad. 2011. “Basic Personal Values and the Meaning of Left-Right Political orientations in 20 Countries.” Political Psychology 32, no. 4: 537–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, Richard. 1995. “The Genealogy of the Chemical Weapons Taboo.” International Organization 49, no. 1: 73103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 1973. The Beliefs of Politicians: Ideology, Conflict and Democracy in Britain and Italy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Quek, Kai. Forthcoming. “Rationalist Experiments on War.” Political Science Research and Methods.Google Scholar
Rabin, Matthew. 1998. “Psychology and Economics.” Journal of Economic Literature 36, no. 1: 1146.Google Scholar
Rabin, Matthew. 2002. “A Perspective on Psychology and Economics.” European Economic Review 46, no. 4: 657–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathbun, Brian C. 2004. Partisan Interventions: European Party Politics and Peace Enforcement in the Balkans. ithaca, n.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Rathbun, Brian C.Hierarchy and Community at Home and Abroad: Evidence of a Common Structure of Domestic and Foreign Policy Beliefs in American Elites.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 51, no. 3: 379407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathbun, Brian C., Kertzer, Joshua D., and Paradis, Mark. 2014. “Homo Diplomaticus: Mixed-Method Evidence of Variation in Strategic Rationality.” Manuscript, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Rotter, Julian B. 1980. “Interpersonal Trust, Trustworthiness, and Gullibility.” American Psychologist 35, no. 1: 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schei, Vidar, And Rognes, Jørn K.. 2003. “Knowing Me, Knowing You: Own Orientation and Information about the Opponent’s Orientation in Negotiation.” International Journal of Conflict Management 14, no. 1: 4359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, Kenneth A. 2005. “The Politics of Risking Peace: Do Hawks or Doves Deliver the Olive Branch?International Organization 59, no. 1: 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Shalom H. 1992. “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests of 20 Countries.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25: 163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Shalom H., Caprara, Gian Vittorio, and Vecchione, Michele. 2010. “Basic Personal Values, Core Political Values, and Voting: A Longitudinal Analysis.” Political Psychology 31, no. 3: 421–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephen, Roland, and Boettcher, William A. III. 2008. “Fair Treatment in International Politics: Distributing Gains and Losses in the Ultimatum Game.” Manuscript, North Carolina State University.Google Scholar
Tannenwald, Nina. 1999. “The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use.” International Organization 53, no. 3: 433–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tingley, Dustin H. 2011. “The Dark side of the Future: An Experimental Test of Commitment Problems in Bargaining.” International Studies Quarterly 55, no. 2: 521–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Eric, Cremer, David De, and Handgraaf, Michel J. J.. 2004. “Social Value Orientations and the Strategic Use of Fairness in Ultimatum Bargaining.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40, no. 6: 697707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lange, Paul A. M. 1999. “The Pursuit of Joint outcomes and Equality in outcomes: An Integrative Model of Social Value Orientation.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77, no. 2: 337–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Lange, Paul A. M., and Kuhlman, D. Michael. 1994. “Social Value Orientations and Impressions of Partner’s Honesty and Intelligence: A Test of the Might versus Morality Effect.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67, no. 1: 126–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, Francis P. 1952. A History of the League of Nations, vol. 1. London, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Boston, Mass.: McGraw-hill.Google Scholar
Weingart, Laurie R., Brett, Jeanne M., olekalns, Mara, and Smith, Philip L.. 2007. “Conficting Social Motives in Negotiating Groups.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93, no. 6: 9941010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, Henry R. 1994. Paths Not Taken: British Labour and International Policy in the 1920s. Chapel hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Wittkopf, Eugene R. 1990. Faces of Internationalism: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Wolfers, Arnold. 1940. Britain and France Between Two Wars: Conficting Strategies of Peace from Versailles to World War II. Hamden, Conn.: Archon.Google Scholar
Wright, Jonathan. 2002. Gustav Stresemann: Weimar’s Greatest Statesman. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Kertzer and Rathbun supplementary material

Kertzer and Rathbun supplementary material 1

Download Kertzer and Rathbun supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 494 KB

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure 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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ 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.

Fair is Fair: social Preferences and reciprocity in international Politics
Available formats

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Fair is Fair: social Preferences and reciprocity in international Politics
Available formats

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Fair is Fair: social Preferences and reciprocity in international Politics
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? *