Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

Moral reference points: theory and experimental evidence

dc.contributor.authorCox, James C.en
dc.contributor.authorList, John A.en
dc.contributor.authorPrice, Michaelen
dc.contributor.authorSadiraj, Vjollcaen
dc.contributor.authorSamek, Anyaen
dc.date.accessioned2026-05-15T19:40:28Z
dc.date.available2026-05-15T19:40:28Z
dc.date.issued2025-04-09en
dc.description.abstractThe literature exploring other-regarding behavior has uncovered interesting phenomena, yet the extent to which the data are consistent with theory is not well understood. We explain how recent work challenges conventional preference theory and social preferences models but also show that a small part of this research poses a more fundamental challenge of general rational choice theory. We restate classical principles of rational choice (Sen AK Rev Econ Stud 38: 307-317, 1971, Sen AK In: K. J. Arrow and M. Intriligator (eds) Handbook of Mathematical Economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1986) to incorporate moral reference points (minimal expectation payoffs and endowments) and postulate that choices exhibit monotonicity to the reference points: “moral monotonicity.” Data from a new experiment tests rational choice theory and familiar reference point models from prior literature against moral monotonicity (MM) theory. We also apply our MM theory to data from several experiments in the previous literature and find general support for the new theory, thus exhibiting the range of fruitful applicability of MM theory.en
dc.description.sponsorshipWe thank the John Templeton Foundation under the Science of Philanthropy Initiative and the National Science Foundation (grant number SES-1658743) for research funding. We appreciate helpful comments and suggestions from Yongsheng Xu and the editor and reviewers.en
dc.description.statusPeer-revieweden
dc.format.extent37en
dc.identifier.issn0938-2259en
dc.identifier.scopus105002172592en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1885/733809153
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rights©2025 The authorsen
dc.sourceEconomic Theoryen
dc.subjectExperimenten
dc.subjectGivingen
dc.subjectMoral reference pointsen
dc.subjectRational choiceen
dc.subjectTakingen
dc.titleMoral reference points: theory and experimental evidenceen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dspace.entity.typePublicationen
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage427en
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage391en
local.contributor.affiliationCox, James C.; Georgia State Universityen
local.contributor.affiliationList, John A.; Research School of Economics, ANU College of Business & Economics, The Australian National Universityen
local.contributor.affiliationPrice, Michael; Research School of Economics, ANU College of Business & Economics, The Australian National Universityen
local.contributor.affiliationSadiraj, Vjollca; Georgia State Universityen
local.contributor.affiliationSamek, Anya; University of California at San Diegoen
local.identifier.citationvolume81en
local.identifier.doi10.1007/s00199-025-01639-3en
local.identifier.pureda128f27-8644-44ef-9777-4a8d49a9392een
local.identifier.urlhttps://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105002172592en
local.type.statusPublisheden

Downloads