Consider the following studies: (i) Fehr & Rockenbach (2003) "Detrimental effects of sanctions on human altruism" and (ii) Gneezy & Rustichini (2000). “A fine is a price”. What do these studies have in common? Select all that apply.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Both papers study the behavioral effects of introducing monetary penalties on pro-social actions: Gneezy & Rustichini (2000) treat a fine as a price and Fehr & Rockenbach (2003) document how sanctions can crowd out altruistic motivation.

1) Relevant knowledge points and concepts
- “A fine is a price” (Gneezy & Rustichini): a field experiment at daycare centers showed that introducing a monetary fine for late pickup converted a social/moral norm into a market transaction and increased late pickups (people responded to the price rather than the moral cost).
- “Detrimental effects of sanctions on human altruism” (Fehr & Rockenbach): experimental evidence that introducing sanctions (punishments/fines) can reduce intrinsic willingness to help or cooperate—sanctions can crowd out voluntary altruism.

2) Step-by-step reasoning
- Gneezy & Rustichini: before the fine, parents avoided late pickup for moral/social reasons. After the fine was announced, the fine acted as a price for lateness; measured lateness increased. This shows a fine did not increase cooperative behavior; it reduced the social incentive.
- Fehr & Rockenbach: when sanctions were available, subjects’ voluntary cooperative behavior decreased relative to conditions without sanctions, indicating sanctions undermined intrinsic cooperation.
- Common implication: in both studies, introducing monetary penalties did not improve—and in fact worsened—the pro-social outcome compared with non-punitive conditions.

3) Calculations
- No numerical calculations are required for the conceptual comparison. The empirical findings in both papers directly support the behavioral conclusion.

4) Why the correct answers are correct
- b is correct because both studies find that imposing fines/sanctions did not enhance cooperation and in some cases reduced it (fines became prices or crowded out altruism).
- d is correct because both studies explicitly involve monetary penalties/sanctions (fines) as the treatment.

5) Why the other options are incorrect
- a is incorrect: neither paper features “one side” freely imposing fines case-by-case as a core commonality. Gneezy & Rustichini used an institutional fine; Fehr & Rockenbach used experimental sanction mechanisms, not a unilateral case-by-case decision by one side in the sense implied.
- c is incorrect: Gneezy & Rustichini is a field experiment, but Fehr & Rockenbach is a controlled experimental study (lab/experimental design), so both are not field experiments.

Conclusion: the correct selections are b and d, which matches the provided answer.

Consider the following studies: (i) Fehr & Rockenbach (2003) "Detrimental effects of sanctions on human altruism" and (ii) Gneezy & Rustichini (2000). “A fine is a price”. What do these studies have in common? Select all that apply.多项选择题

类似问题

Which statement is correct, in relation to behavioural economics?

Question at position 6 Which investor behaviors can lead to asset bubbles? (select all that apply)OverconfidenceLoss aversionHerd mentalityRepresentativeness bias

When a person places additional value on a good simply because she owns it, this is evidence of

关于行为经济学理论，以下哪个说法是错误的？

Question8 Nudges are strategies that consist of exploiting behavioral biases to improve welfare True False ResetMaximum marks: 1 Flag question undefined

Prospect theory tells us that consumers are:

What principle(s) explain why free trials can work to increase subscription sign-ups?

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单