Principal–Agent Settings with Random Shocks

References

• Abbink K, Irlenbusch B, Renner E (2000) The moonlighting game: An experimental study on reciprocity and retribution. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 42(2):265–277.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aimone JA, Houser D (2011) Beneficial betrayal aversion. PLoS ONE 6(3):e17725, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017725.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Bernheim BD (2009) Social image and the 50–50 norm: A theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica 77(5):1607–1636.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andreoni J, Harbaugh W, Vesterlund L (2003) The carrot or the stick: Rewards, punishments, and cooperation. Amer. Econom. Rev. 93(3):893–902.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azrieli Y, Chambers CP, Healy PJ (2015) Incentives in Experiments: A Theoretical Analysis. Working paper, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
• Baker GP (1992) Incentive contracts and performance measurement. J. Political Econom. 100(3):598–614.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron J, Hershey JC (1988) Outcome bias in decision evaluation. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 54(4):569–579.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartling B, Fehr E, Schmidt KM (2012) Screening, competition, and job design: Economic origins of good jobs. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(2):834–864.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baumeister R, Bratslavsky E, Finkenauer C, Vohs K (2001) Bad is stronger than good. Rev. General Psych. 5(4):323–370.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bellemare C, Kroger S (2007) On representative social capital. Eur. Econom. Rev. 51(1):183–202.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cameron AC, Gelbach JB, Miller DL (2008) Bootstrap-based improvements for inference with clustered errors. Rev. Econom. Statist. 90(3):414–427.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cappelen AW, Konow J, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B (2013) Just luck: An experimental study of risk-taking and fairness. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103(4):1398–1413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G (2004) Attribution and reciprocity in an experimental labor market. J. Labor Econom. 22(3):665–688.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Dufwenberg M (2006) Promises and partnership. Econometrica 74(6):1579–1601.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Gneezy U (2008) What’s in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 68(1):29–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Haruvy E (2002) Altruism, equity, and reciprocity in a gift-exchange experiment: an encompassing approach. Games Econom. Behav. 40(2):203–231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Kuhn P (2011) Lab labor: What can labor economists learn from the lab? Ashenfelter O, Card D, eds. Handbook of Labor Economics (Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam), 229–330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Levine DI (2007) Intention and stochastic outcomes: An experimental study. Econom. J. 117(522):1051–1072.Google Scholar
• Ericsson KA, Charness N (1994) Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. Amer. Psychologist 49(8):725–747.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Erkal N, Gangadharan L, Nikiforakis N (2011) Relative earnings and giving in a real-effort experiment. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(7):3330–3348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Fischbacher U (2006) A theory of reciprocity. Games Econom. Behav. 54(2):293–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Falk A, Kosfeld M (2006) The hidden costs of control. Amer. Econom. Rev. 96(5):1611–1630.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Gächter S (2000) Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. J. Econom. Perspectives 14(3):159–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Schmidt KM (2007) Adding a stick to the carrot? The interaction of bonuses and fines. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(2):177–181.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Gächter S, Kirchsteiger G (1997) Reciprocity as a contract enforcement device: Experimental evidence. Econometrica 65(4):833–860.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Klein A, Schmidt KM (2007) Fairness and contract design. Econometrica 75(1):121–154.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U (2007) z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 10(2):171–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gasper JT, Reeves A (2011) Make it rain? Retrospection and the attentive electorate in the context of natural disasters. Amer. J. Political Sci. 55(2):340–355.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, List JA (2006) Putting behavioral economics to work: Testing for gift exchange in labor markets using field experiments. Econometrica 74(5):1365–1384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grossman SJ, Hart OD (1983) An analysis of the principal–agent problem. Econometrica 51(1):7–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gurdal M, Miller J, Rustichini A (2013) Why blame? J. Political Econom. 121(6):1205–1247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harris M, Raviv A (1979) Optimal incentive contracts with imperfect information. J. Econom. Theory 20(2):231–259.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Healy A, Malhotra N, Mo CH (2010) Irrelevant events affect voters’ evaluations of government performance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107(29):12804–12809.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holmström B (1979) Moral hazard and observability. Bell J. Econom. 10(1):74–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holmström B, Milgrom P (1991) Multitask principal–agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. J. Law, Econom., Organ. 7:24–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Houser D, Xiao E, McCabe K, Smith V (2008) When punishment fails: Research on sanctions, intentions, and non-cooperation. Games Econom. Behav. 62(2):509–532.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konow J (2000) Fair shares: Accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(4):1072–1091.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konow J (2003) Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. J. Econom. Literature 41(4):1188–1239.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laffont J-J, Martimort D (2002) The Theory of Incentives: The Principal–Agent Model (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
• List JA (2007) On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. J. Political Econom. 115(3):482–493.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Marshall GW, Mowen JC (1993) An experimental investigation of the outcome bias in salesperson performance evaluations. J. Personal Selling Sales Management 13(3):31–47.Google Scholar
• Mazzocco PJ, Alicke MD, Davis TL (2004) On the robustness of outcome bias: No constraint by prior culpability Basic Appl. Soc. Psych. 26(2–3):131–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Milgrom P, Roberts J (1992) Economics, Organization and Management (Prentice Hall , Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
• Offerman T (2002) Hurting hurts more than helping helps. Eur. Econom. Rev. 46(8):1423–1437.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prendergast C (1999) The provision of incentives in firms. J. Econom. Literature 37(1):7–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rabin M (1993) Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Amer. Econom. Rev. 83(5):1281–1302.Google Scholar
• Rey-Biel P, Sheremeta R, Uler N (2015) When income depends on performance and luck: The effects of culture and information on giving. ESI Working Paper, Chapman University, Orange, CA.Google Scholar
• Shavell S (1979) Risk sharing and incentives in the principal and agent relationship. Bell J. Econom. 10(1):55–73.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sloof R, van Praag CM (2010) The effect of noise in a performance measure on work motivation: A real effort laboratory experiment. Labour Econom. 17(5):751–765.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xiao E, Kunreuther H (2015) Punishment and cooperation in stochastic social dilemmas. J. Conflict Resolution, ePub ahead of print January 5, doi: 10.1177/0022002714564426.Google Scholar