Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-kl2l2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-02T03:55:29.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Putting a price tag on others’ perceptions of us

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Yohanes E. Riyanto*
Affiliation:
Division of Economics, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, 14 Nanyang Drive HSS 04-83, Singapore 637332, Singapore
Jianlin Zhang*
Affiliation:
Global Education, Singapore Institute of Management, 461 Clementi Road, Singapore 599491, Singapore

Abstract

Standard economic theories assume that people are self-interested and their wellbeing solely dependent on their own material gains or losses. Unless they have an impact on monetary payoffs, the perceptions of anonymous individuals are irrelevant to people’s decision making. However, a large body of research in sociology and social psychology demonstrates that self-identity is developed through one’s understanding of how one is perceived by others. Using (Cooley’s, Human nature and the social order, 1964) concept of the “looking-glass self” as a framework, we evaluate experimentally whether or not people care about the imputed judgment of anonymous others arising from their imagination of their perceptions. We implemented variants of the Becker–DeGroot–Marschak mechanism to elicit the monetary value attached to the perceptions by participants. In one variant, only nonnegative bids were allowed, while in another, negative bids were allowed. We show that in an environment in which the perceptions of others are only conveyed to participants anonymously and privately, self-interested individuals exhibited strong negative perception avoidance even though the perceptions have no impact on their monetary payoff. The participants were willing to spend a significant amount in order to avoid confirming the supposedly negative perception. Thus, for them, ignorance was truly bliss. We also show that, in the absence of the audience effect, the fair-minded participants adopted a neutral attitude towards the perception of them as fair.

Information

Type
Original Paper
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/s10683-015-9450-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Andreoni, J, & Bernheim, BD (2009). Social image and the 50-50 norm: A theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica, 77(5), 16071636. 10.3982/ECTA7384Google Scholar
Ariely, D, Bracha, A, & Meier, S (2009). Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving pro-socially. American Economic Review, 99(1), 544555. 10.1257/aer.99.1.544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagwell, LS, & Bernheim, BD (1996). Veblen effects in a theory of conspicuous consumption. American Economic Review, 86(3), 349373.Google Scholar
Beaman, L, Diener, E, & Svanum, S (1979). Self-awareness and transgression in children: Two field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 18351846. 10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1835CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becker, G, DeGroot, M, & Marschak, J (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Sciences, 9(3), 226236. 10.1002/bs.3830090304CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ben-Ner, A, & Halldorsson, F (2010). Trusting and trustworthiness: What are they, how to measure them, and what affects them?. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(1), 6479. 10.1016/j.joep.2009.10.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Ner, A, Kong, F, & Putterman, L (2004). Share and share alike? Gender-pairing, personality, and cognitive ability as determinants of giving. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(5), 581589. 10.1016/S0167-4870(03)00065-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernheim, BD (1994). A theory of conformity. Journal of Political Economy, 102(5), 841877. 10.1086/261957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chew, SH, & Ho, JL (1994). Hope: An empirical study of attitude toward the timing of uncertainty resolution. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 8(3), 267288. 10.1007/BF01064045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooley, CH (1964). Human nature and the social order, New York: Schocken.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M, & Figurski, T (1982). Self-awareness and aversive experience in everyday life. Journal of Personality, 50(1), 1528. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1982.tb00742.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dana, J, Weber, RA, & Kuang, JX (2007). Exploiting moral wiggle room: Experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Economic Theory, 33(1), 6780. 10.1007/s00199-006-0153-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
DellaVigna, S, List, J, & Malmendier, U (2012). Testing for altruism and social pressure in charitable giving. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(1), 156. 10.1093/qje/qjr050CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duval, TS, & Silvia, PJ (2002). Self-awareness, probability of improvement, and the self-serving bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 4961. 10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.49CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellingsen, T, & Johannesson, M (2008). Pride and prejudice: The human side of incentive theory. American Economic Review, 98(3), 9901008. 10.1257/aer.98.3.990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellingsen, T, & Johannesson, M (2008). Anticipated verbal feedback induces altruistic behavior. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(2), 100105. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fejfar, MC, & Hoyle, RH (2000). Effect of private self-awareness on negative affect and self-referent attribution: A quantitative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 132142. 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_02CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glazer, A, & Konrad, KA (1996). A signaling explanation for charity. American Economic Review, 86(4), 10191028.Google Scholar
Goffman, E (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life, New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Houser, D, & Xiao, E (2010). Classification of natural language messages using a coordination game. Experimental Economics, 14(1), 114. 10.1007/s10683-010-9254-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ireland, N (1994). On limiting the market for status signals. Journal of Public Economics, 53(1), 91110. 10.1016/0047-2727(94)90015-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D, Knetsch, J, & Thaler, R (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 13251348. 10.1086/261737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacetera, N, & Macis, M (2010). Social image concerns and pro-social behavior: Field evidence from a nonlinear incentive scheme. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(2), 225237. 10.1016/j.jebo.2010.08.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, G (1987). Anticipation and the valuation of delayed consumption. The Economics Journal, 97(387), 666684. 10.2307/2232929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovallo, D, & Kahneman, D (2000). Living with uncertainty: Attractiveness and resolution timing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(2), 179190. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200004/06)13:2<179::AID-BDM332>3.0.CO;2-J3.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskalenko, S, & Heine, SJ (2003). Watching your troubles away: Television viewing as a stimulus for subjective self-awareness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(1), 7685. 10.1177/0146167202238373CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murnighan, JK, Oesch, JM, & Pillutla, M (2001). Player types and self-impression management in dictatorship games: Two experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 37(2), 388414. 10.1006/game.2001.0847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, SD, & de Waal, FB (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral Brain Science, 25(1), 2072.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutström, E (1998). Home-grown values and incentive compatible auction design. International Journal of Game Theory, 27(3), 427441. 10.1007/s001820050082Google Scholar
Shaffer, L (2005). From mirror self-recognition to the looking-glass self: Exploring the justification hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(1), 4765. 10.1002/jclp.20090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shogren, J, Cho, S, Koo, C, List, J, Park, C, Polo, P, & Wilhelmi, R (2001). Auction mechanisms and the measurement of WTP and WTA. Resource and Energy Economics, 23(2), 97100. 10.1016/S0928-7655(00)00038-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tadelis, S (2007). The power of shame and the rationality of trust, Berkeley: Mimeo, Haas School of Business, U.C.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, HM, Tice, DM Leary, MR, & Tangney, JP (2012). Reflected appraisal through a 21st-century looking glass. Handbook of self and identity, New York: Guilford 124140.Google Scholar
Xiao, E, & Houser, D (2009). Avoiding the sharp tongue: Anticipated written messages promote fair economic exchange. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(3), 393404. 10.1016/j.joep.2008.12.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeung, KT, & Martin, JL (2003). The looking glass self: An empirical test and elaboration. Social Forces, 81(3), 843879. 10.1353/sof.2003.0048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zizzo, DJ (2010). Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 13(1), 7598. 10.1007/s10683-009-9230-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Riyanto and Zhang supplementary material

Table 1: Respective Probabilities that Each Bid Price Submitted is Greater Than or Equal to the Random Price Chosen
Download Riyanto and Zhang supplementary material(File)
File 19.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Riyanto and Zhang supplementary material

Riyanto and Zhang supplementary material 1
Download Riyanto and Zhang supplementary material(File)
File 23.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Riyanto and Zhang supplementary material

Post-Experimental Questionnaires for Player X
Download Riyanto and Zhang supplementary material(File)
File 35.6 KB