Do people care about intentions - even when good intentions do not produce good results? In our experiments we find that rates of punishment and reward react strongly to intentions (the wage a firm decides to pay) and more modestly to distributional outcomes (the higher or lower wage actually received including the stochastic component). For example, workers who end up receiving 'medium' wages respond much more positively when this resulted from the firm offering a high wage (but bad luck lowered the worker's pay) than when this resulted from the firm offering a low wage (and good luck raised the pay).

When is sabotage acceptable? We use a quasi-experimental design to study the acceptability of several forms of rule-breaking at work. In addition to hypotheses from theories of fairness, we find retaliation is perceived as more acceptable if it is an act of omission instead of an act commission and if it is in the same "domain" as the employer's bad act. Pilfering goods and services is more acceptable than taking money, while damaging property is least acceptable. Respondents who are older, female, politically conservative, and managers typically show less tolerance for acts of sabotage, while union members are union members a bit more accepting than average.

The issue of one's identity has loomed large recently and has unfortunately been used more and more as a wedge to separate subgroups. It is important to understand the ramifications of identity, both to limit the negative consequences (such as so-called identity politics) and to be able to use one's sense of identity as a positive force in the world. What are effective approaches to allow positive identities and pride about one's social identity to be reinforced for the greater good? Recent work suggests that some forms of team competition can induce greater effort, which can be applied to areas such as microlending, charitable giving, and organization of the gig economy. And yet many fascinating questions remain; for example, what is the interaction of salience, social norms, and preferences on the effects of social identity in our society?

We explore play between groups where one member of each 2-person group dictates the play of that group and is therefore responsible for the payoff of the other group member. We compare this to play when the game is the same, but each person is playing only for herself. Consistent with the principle of responsibility-alleviation described in Charness (2000), we find that a sense of responsibility for the welfare of others has an effect. While the issue of responsibility does not appear to influence the decisions of 2/3 of the population, almost 90 percent of the remaining 1/3 of the population plays a less risky strategy when choosing for a group than when playing only for herself.

This paper presents evidence that the willingness to punish an unfair action is sensitive to whether this action was preceded by a deceptive message. One player first sends a message indicating an intended play, which is either favorable or unfavorable to the other player in the game. After the message, the sender and the receiver play a simultaneous 2x2 game, in which the sender may or may not play according to his message. Outcome cells may, hence, be reached following true or false messages. In the third stage the receiver may (at a cost) punish or reward, depending on which cell of the simultaneous game has been reached. We test whether receivers' rates of monetary sacrifice depend on the process by which an outcome is reached. We study two decision-elicitation methods: the strategy and the direct response methods. For each method, deception more than doubles the punishment rate as a response to an action that is unfavorable to the receiver. We also find evidence that 17-25% of all participants choose to reward a favorable action choice made by the sender, even though doing so leaves one at a payoff disadvantage. Our results reflect on current economic models of utility and have implications for organizational decision-making behavior.

We test whether promises per se are effective in enhancing cooperative behavior in a form of a trust game. In Charness & Dufwenberg (2006) we found considerable effectiveness for free-form personalized pre-play statements-of-intent ("promises"), in support of a theory of belief-dependent guilt aversion. However, we were not able to reject an alternative explanation based on a belief-independent cost-of-lying. We now adapt our old design and replace the free-form messages with an opportunity for a bare promise-only message. If both forms of promises are equally effective, this would be consistent with a cost-of-lying explanation. However, in sharp contrast to previous results, we find that these bare promise-only messages lead to behavior that is much the same as when no messages are feasible. Further, beliefs are unaffected, in contrast with the change in beliefs we found with personalized promises. This provides evidence for belief-dependent guilt aversion over cost-of-lying.

"The population of most developed societies is 'graying'. As life expectancy increases and the large baby-boom generation approaches retirement age, this has critical consequences for maintaining a high standard of living and the sustainability of pension systems. In the light of these labor-force and social concerns, we consider experimentally the comparative behavior of juniors (under 30) and seniors (over 50) in both experiments conducted onsite with the employees of two large firms and in a conventional laboratory environment with students and retirees. Our results are compelling. First, seniors are not more risk-averse, as opposed to the conventional stereotype. Second, both juniors and seniors react to the competitiveness of the environment and there is no significant difference in performance in the real-effort task across the generations when they are competing. Third, seniors are typically more cooperative than juniors in a team-production game. Cooperation is highest in groups in which there is a mix of juniors and seniors, suggesting that there are indeed benefits in maintaining a work force with diversity in age. Overall, the implication is that it is beneficial to define additional short-term incentives near the end of the workers' career to motivate and to retain older workers. A secondary, but important, issue is the external validity of conventional laboratory experiments. In general we do not find strong differences in behavior between workers and non-workers, indicating that laboratory experiments may not be such a bad approximation for the field environment"--Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit web site.

We examine experimentally the impact of communication on trust and cooperation. Our design admits observation of promises, lies, and beliefs. The evidence is consistent with people striving to live up to others' expectations in order to avoid guilt, as can be modeled using psychological game theory. When players exhibit such guilt aversion, communication may influence motivation and behavior by influencing beliefs about beliefs. Promises may enhance trustworthy behavior, which is what we observe. We argue that guilt aversion may be relevant for understanding strategic interaction in variety of settings, and that it may shed light on the role of language, discussions, agreements, and social norms in these contexts.

The gift-exchange game is a form of sequential prisoner's dilemma, developed by Fehr, Kirchsteiger, and Riedl (1993), and popularized in a series of papers by Ernst Fehr and co-authors. While the European studies typically feature a high degree of gift exchange, the few U.S. studies provide some conflicting results. We find that the degree of gift exchange is surprisingly sensitive to an apparently innocuous change - whether or not a comprehensive payoff table is provided in the instructions. We also find significant and substantial time trends in responder behavior, suggesting that behavior in our game is sensitive to strategic considerations.