Allowing repeat winners
Unbiased lotteries seem the least unfair and simplest procedures to allocate scarce indivisible resources to those with equal claims. But, when lotteries are repeated, it is not immediately obvious whether prior winners should be included or excluded. As in design questions surrounding single-shot l...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Society for Judgment and Decision Making
2010-08-01
|
Series: | Judgment and Decision Making |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://journal.sjdm.org/10/9311/jdm9311.pdf |
id |
doaj-69d136fa437b4a128e5540e637cdcc74 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-69d136fa437b4a128e5540e637cdcc742021-05-02T02:29:22ZengSociety for Judgment and Decision MakingJudgment and Decision Making1930-29752010-08-0155374379Allowing repeat winnersMarco D. HueschRichard BradyUnbiased lotteries seem the least unfair and simplest procedures to allocate scarce indivisible resources to those with equal claims. But, when lotteries are repeated, it is not immediately obvious whether prior winners should be included or excluded. As in design questions surrounding single-shot lotteries, considerations of self-interest and distributive social preferences may interact. We investigate preferences for allowing participation of earlier winners in sequential lotteries. We found a strong preference for exclusion, both in settings where subjects were involved, and those where they were not. Subjects who answered questions about both settings did not differ in their tendency to prefer exclusion. Stated rationales significantly predicted choice but did not predict switching of choices between the two settings. http://journal.sjdm.org/10/9311/jdm9311.pdffairnesssocial preferencesself-interestlotteriesallocative procedures.NAKeywords |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Marco D. Huesch Richard Brady |
spellingShingle |
Marco D. Huesch Richard Brady Allowing repeat winners Judgment and Decision Making fairness social preferences self-interest lotteries allocative procedures.NAKeywords |
author_facet |
Marco D. Huesch Richard Brady |
author_sort |
Marco D. Huesch |
title |
Allowing repeat winners |
title_short |
Allowing repeat winners |
title_full |
Allowing repeat winners |
title_fullStr |
Allowing repeat winners |
title_full_unstemmed |
Allowing repeat winners |
title_sort |
allowing repeat winners |
publisher |
Society for Judgment and Decision Making |
series |
Judgment and Decision Making |
issn |
1930-2975 |
publishDate |
2010-08-01 |
description |
Unbiased lotteries seem the least unfair and simplest procedures to allocate scarce indivisible resources to those with equal claims. But, when lotteries are repeated, it is not immediately obvious whether prior winners should be included or excluded. As in design questions surrounding single-shot lotteries, considerations of self-interest and distributive social preferences may interact. We investigate preferences for allowing participation of earlier winners in sequential lotteries. We found a strong preference for exclusion, both in settings where subjects were involved, and those where they were not. Subjects who answered questions about both settings did not differ in their tendency to prefer exclusion. Stated rationales significantly predicted choice but did not predict switching of choices between the two settings. |
topic |
fairness social preferences self-interest lotteries allocative procedures.NAKeywords |
url |
http://journal.sjdm.org/10/9311/jdm9311.pdf |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT marcodhuesch allowingrepeatwinners AT richardbrady allowingrepeatwinners |
_version_ |
1721496060470231040 |