Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T00:54:41.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Upset but (almost) correct: a conceptual replication of Di Tella, Perez-Truglia, Babino and Sigman (2015)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Eugenio Verrina Open the ORCID record for Eugenio Verrina [Opens in a new window]
Eugenio Verrina*
Affiliation:
Sciences Po Paris–CNRS, Paris, France
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper provides a close conceptual replication of the study by Di Tella et al. (Am Econ Rev 105: 3416–42, 2015) on self-serving beliefs. The design differs in some aspects from the original study, but maintains its fundamental structure and uses a larger sample size. The main findings of the original study are not replicated. If anything, beliefs seem to be biased in the opposite direction. These results are discussed jointly with two other replication efforts by Ging-Jehli et al. (Games Econ Behav 122–341, 2020) and Ahumada et al. (Well excuse me! replicating and connecting excuse-seeking behaviors, 2022). The main conclusion is that self-serving beliefs about others in strategic settings seem to be quite sensitive and hard to capture.

Keywords

Self-serving beliefsConceptual replicationAltruism

JEL classification

D63: Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement D64: Altruism • Philanthropy • Intergenerational Transfers C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior D83: Search • Learning • Information and Knowledge • Communication • Belief • Unawareness C72: Noncooperative Games
Type
Replication Paper
Information
Journal of the Economic Science Association , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , December 2023 , pp. 327 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Economic Science Association 2023.

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.)

Footnotes

The replication material for the study is available at OSF under DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UD5G7 or URL https://osf.io/ud5g7/.

References

Ahumada, B., Chen, Y., Gupta, N., Hyde, K., Lepper, M., Mathews, W., Neil, S., Vesterlund, L., Weidman, T., Wilson, A., et al. (2022). Well excuse me! Replicating and connecting excuse-seeking behaviors. University of Pittsburgh. http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/42222/.Google Scholar
Bénabou, R., Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1652–1678. 10.1257/aer.96.5.1652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crandall, C. S., Sherman, J. W. (2016). On the scientific superiority of conceptual replications for scientific progress. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 93–99. 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dana, J., Weber, R. A., Kuang, J. X. (2007). Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Economic Theory, 33(1), 67–80. 10.1007/s00199-006-0153-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
DellaVigna, S., Pope, D. (2019). Stability of experimental results: Forecasts and evidence, National Bureau of Economic Research: Technical report 10.3386/w25858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derksen, M., Morawski, J. (2022). Kinds of replication: Examining the meanings of “conceptual replication" and “direct replication". Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17, 1490. 10.1177/17456916211041116CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Di Tella, R., Perez-Truglia, R., Babino, A., Sigman, M. (2015). Conveniently upset: Avoiding altruism by distorting beliefs about others’ altruism. American Economic Review, 105(11), 3416–42. 10.1257/aer.20141409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exley, C. L. (2015). Excusing selfishness in charitable giving: The role of risk. The Review of Economic Studies, 83(2), 587–628. 10.1093/restud/rdv051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2), 293–315. 10.1016/j.geb.2005.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178. 10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ging-Jehli, N. R., Schneider, F. H., Weber, R. A. (2020). On self-serving strategic beliefs. Games and Economic Behavior, 122, 341. 10.1016/j.geb.2020.04.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gino, F., Norton, M. I., Weber, R. A. (2016). Motivated Bayesians: Feeling moral while acting egoistically. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3), 189–212. 10.1257/jep.30.3.189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiner, B. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with Orsee. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 1(1), 114–125. 10.1007/s40881-015-0004-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haisley, E. C., Weber, R. A. (2010). Self-serving interpretations of ambiguity in other-regarding behavior. Games and Economic Behavior, 68(2), 614–625. 10.1016/j.geb.2009.08.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10),732. 10.1038/nclimate1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konow, J. (2000). Fair shares: Accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. American Economic Review, 90(4), 1072–1091. 10.1257/aer.90.4.1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machery, E. (2020). What is a replication? Philosophy of Science, 87(4), 545–567. 10.1086/709701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. T., Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychological Bulletin, 82(2),213. 10.1037/h0076486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Errington, T. M. (2020). What is replication? PLoS Biology, 18(3), 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000691CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., Fidler, F., Hilgard, J., Struhl, M. K., Nuijten, M. B. et al., (2022). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73(1), 719–748. 10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonsohn, U. (2015). Small telescopes: Detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Psychological Science, 26(5), 559–569. 10.1177/0956797614567341CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Verrina supplementary material

Verrina supplementary material
Download Verrina supplementary material(File)
File 118.8 KB