Fairness and the roads not taken: An experimental test of non-reciprocal set-dependence in distributive preferences

Experimental investigations of preferences for fairness reveal systematic set-dependence in people's allocative choices: Choices over identical options can be reversed by strategically irrelevant changes in the set of possible outcomes of the larger game. Set-dependent choice behavior is often thought to reflect reciprocity motives, the desire to reward good intentions and punish bad ones. This paper investigates set-dependence in unilateral decision problems, where reciprocity motives cannot be at work. By examining truncated dictator games-dictator games with constrained budgets-I document choice reversals that are systematically related to changes in the available set, yet cannot be explained by the desire to reciprocate intentions.