(Over-)Stylizing Experimental Findings and Theorizing with Sweeping Generality

Abstract

Human decision making is a process guided by different and partly competing motivations that can each dominate behavior and lead to different effects depending on strength and circumstances. 'Over-stylizing' neglects such competing concerns and context-dependence, although it facilitates the emergence of elaborate general theories. We illustrate by examples from social dilemma experiments and inequality aversion theories that sweeping empirical claims should be avoided.decision theory, social dilemmas, inequality aversion, behavioral economics, experimental economics