Marc Fleurbaey: Fairness, Responsibility, and Welfare

Rawls, Fairness, Responsibility, Welfare, egalitarianism / luck egalitarianism, distributive justice, compensation principle, neutrality principle, envy

Zur Integration evolutionärer Analyse in die soziologische Handlungstheorie

It is explored if and to what extent two approaches in behavioral sciences, which are promising with respect to an evolutionary grounded, integrative action theory, are actually compatible. These two approaches are, on the one hand, evolutionary psychology, which conceptualizes human nature as a collection of evolved psychological mechanisms, each being functionally specialized with respect to a specific problem of adaptation. And on the other hand, the dual-process perspective, which holds that human behavior is driven by the interplay of two qualitatively distinct types of cognitive processes: Autonomous, fast, and associative Type 1 processes, which operate outside of the consciousness of the actor, on the one hand, and controlled, slow, and rule-based Type 2 processes of which the actor is aware. Notably, both of these approaches have descendants in modern sociological action theory, i.e., goal-framing theory (Lindenberg 2008, 2009) and the model of frame-selection (Esser 2001; Kroneberg 2011). It is argued that evolutionary psychology and the dual-process perspective are largely compatible, thereby giving rise to an evolutionary grounded, integrative action theory. Accordingly, Type 1 processes can be traced back to evolutionary old cognitive modules, which humans share with other species and which are highly efficient at solving specific problems of adaptation in a stable environment. In contrast, Type 2 processes of higher cognition are distinctly developed in humans and highly effective at dealing with a rapidly changing life space.publishedVersio

Individuals of high socioeconomic status are altruistic in sharing money but egoistic in sharing time

The questions of whether and how socioeconomic status (SES) predicts prosocial behavior have sparked an interest from different disciplines, yet experimental evidence is inconclusive. We embedded two types of dictator games in a web survey with 7772 participants from Germany, Poland, Sweden, and the US. Each participant was asked to split a sum of money and a fixed amount of time between themself and a recipient. While higher-SES individuals are more generous than lower-SES individuals in the money game, they are more egoistic in the time game. In addition, the SES of the recipient matters more in the money game than in the time game. These results point towards the relevancy of a situationally contingent social norm of redistribution in studying the relationship between SES and prosocial behavior.publishedVersio

Why Not? On Axiomatizing Sociological Action Theory

In diesem Beitrag wird aufgezeigt, dass mit den axiomatischen Theorien begrenzter Rationalität (Rubinstein 1998) dasselbe Ziel wie mit der neueren soziologischen Handlungstheorie verfolgt wird: Die Entwicklung einer deskriptiv gehaltvollen Entscheidungstheorie. Ferner wird argumentiert, dass die neuere soziologische Handlungstheorie einer axiomatischen Fundierung bedarf. Die mögliche Gestalt derartiger Charakterisierungen wird am Beispiel des wohl einflussreichsten Vertreters der neueren soziologischen Handlungstheorie in Deutschland demonstriert, dem Modell der Frame-Selektion von Esser (2001) und Kroneberg (2005).This contribution demonstrates that two different approaches to decision theory, i. e. the axiomatic theories of bounded rationality (Rubinstein 1998) and the new sociological theory of action, share the common goal of developing a decision theory that describes what actually happens inside the minds of decision makers. Additionally, it is argued that sociological action theory has need of such an axiomatic method. This is illustrated by providing a partial characterization of the model of frame selection developed by Esser (2001) and Kroneberg (2005), arguably the most influential model in action theory in German sociological discourse

On the Interpretation of Decision-theoretic Models - A Rejoinder

In dieser Erwiderung auf Linnebach (2016) werden zwei methodologische Argumente für die Axiomatisierung der soziologischen Handlungstheorie diskutiert.This rejoinder to Linnebach (2016) discusses two methodological arguments for the axiomatization of sociological action theory

Prosocial Behavior Across Professional Boundaries: Experimental Evidence From Hospitals

Differences in social status might impede teamwork and cooperation among health professionals. Against this background, we study the social interaction between health professionals using a simple experimental tool from behavioral economics (the dictator game). In our setup, physicians, nurses, and student nurses had to allocate monetary endowments between themselves and recipients, whereby the professional status of the recipient (physician, nurse, and student nurse) was varied. This way, we obtain insights into the prosocial motives of health professionals. Our results indicate a considerable amount of pure altruistic concern for the welfare of others among health practitioners, which also reaches across professional boundaries. These findings put concerns expressed in the literature on the doctor–nurse relationship such as a potential lack of team identity, in-group favoritism, and overly strict hierarchies along professional boundaries into perspective. Our study also paves the way for further experimental research on the relationship between social status and cooperation in the medical sector

Experiments on bilateral bargaining in markets

TU games, Outside options, Experiment, Gloves game, C71,

Individuals of high socioeconomic status are altruistic in sharing money but egoistic in sharing time.

The questions of whether and how socioeconomic status (SES) predicts prosocial behavior have sparked an interest from different disciplines, yet experimental evidence is inconclusive. We embedded two types of dictator games in a web survey with 7772 participants from Germany, Poland, Sweden, and the US. Each participant was asked to split a sum of money and a fixed amount of time between themself and a recipient. While higher-SES individuals are more generous than lower-SES individuals in the money game, they are more egoistic in the time game. In addition, the SES of the recipient matters more in the money game than in the time game. These results point towards the relevancy of a situationally contingent social norm of redistribution in studying the relationship between SES and prosocial behavior