The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Fairness and desert in tournaments.

Fairness and desert in tournaments.
Fairness and desert in tournaments.
We model the behavior of agents who care about receiving what they feel they deserve in a two-player rank-order tournament. Perceived entitlements are sensitive to how hard an agent has worked relative to her rival, and agents are loss averse around their meritocratically determined endogenous reference points. In a fair tournament sufficiently large desert concerns drive identical agents to push their effort levels apart in order to end up closer to their reference points on average.

In an unfair tournament, where one agent is advantaged, the equilibrium is symmetric in the absence of desert, but asymmetric in the presence of desert. We find that desert concerns can undermine the standard conclusion that competition for a fixed supply of status is socially wasteful and explain why, when the distribution of output noise is fat-tailed, an employer might use a rank-order incentive scheme.
desert, equity, tournament, loss aversion, reference-dependent preferences, reference point, psychological game theory, status, relative performance evaluation
0899-8256
Gill, David
2319117f-b14e-48c6-8a33-34f5c9d4e2ea
Stone, Rebecca
725b2db5-cc73-462d-bc1f-3c254d7a065f
Gill, David
2319117f-b14e-48c6-8a33-34f5c9d4e2ea
Stone, Rebecca
725b2db5-cc73-462d-bc1f-3c254d7a065f

Gill, David and Stone, Rebecca (2010) Fairness and desert in tournaments. Games and Economic Behavior. (doi:10.1016/j.geb.2010.01.002). (In Press)

Record type: Article

Abstract

We model the behavior of agents who care about receiving what they feel they deserve in a two-player rank-order tournament. Perceived entitlements are sensitive to how hard an agent has worked relative to her rival, and agents are loss averse around their meritocratically determined endogenous reference points. In a fair tournament sufficiently large desert concerns drive identical agents to push their effort levels apart in order to end up closer to their reference points on average.

In an unfair tournament, where one agent is advantaged, the equilibrium is symmetric in the absence of desert, but asymmetric in the presence of desert. We find that desert concerns can undermine the standard conclusion that competition for a fixed supply of status is socially wasteful and explain why, when the distribution of output noise is fat-tailed, an employer might use a rank-order incentive scheme.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 2010
Keywords: desert, equity, tournament, loss aversion, reference-dependent preferences, reference point, psychological game theory, status, relative performance evaluation

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 150061
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/150061
ISSN: 0899-8256
PURE UUID: 96b36c79-53fe-4204-8607-9d798496cb6d

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 04 May 2010 10:11
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 01:11

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: David Gill
Author: Rebecca Stone

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×