Experimental Law and Economics

Edited by Jennifer H. Arlen, Norma Z. Paige Professor of Law; Director, Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement; and Director, Center for Law, Economics and Organization, New York University School of Law, US and Eric L. Talley, Columbia Law School, US

• Contents:AcknowledgementsIntroductionJennifer H. Arlen and Eric L. TalleyPART IEXPERIMENTAL TEST OF THE COASE THEOREM 1. Elizabeth Hoffman and Matthew Spitzer (1982), ‘The Coase Theorem: Some Experimental Tests’2. Stewart Schwab (1988), ‘A Coasean Experiment on Contract Presumptions’3. Rachel Croson and Jason Scott Johnston (2000), ‘Experimental Results on Bargaining Under Alternative Property Rights Regimes’PART IILOSS AVERSION: ENDOWMENT EFFECTS, FRAMING EFFECTS, STATUS QUO BIASA Endowment Effects4. Daniel Kahneman, Jack L. Knetsch and Richard H. Thaler (1990), ‘Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem’5. Jennifer Arlen, Matthew Spitzer and Eric Talley (2002), ‘Endowment Effects within Corporate Agency Relationships’6. Charles R. Plott and Kathryn Zeiler (2005), ‘The Willingness to Pay-Willingness to Accept Gap, the “Endowment Effect”, Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations’BFraming Effects7. Edward J. McCaffery, Daniel J. Kahneman and Matthew L. Spitzer (1995), ‘Framing the Jury: Cognitive Perspectives on Pain and Suffering Awards’8. Russell Korobkin and Chris Guthrie (1997), ‘Psychology, Economics, and Settlement: A New Look at the Role of the Lawyer’PART IIISETTLEMENT BEHAVIOUR, SELF-SERVING BIAS AND THE ROLE OF LAWYERS 9. Linda Babcock, George Loewenstein, Samuel Issacharoff and Colin Camerer (1995), ‘Biased Judgments of Fairness in Bargaining’10. George Loewenstein and Don A. Moore (2004), ‘When Ignorance is Bliss: Information Exchange and Inefficiency in Bargaining’11. Linda Babcock, George Loewenstein and Samuel Issacharoff (1998), ‘Creating Convergence: Debiasing Biased Litigants’12. Greg Pogarsky and Linda Babcock (2001), ‘Damage Caps, Motivated Anchoring, and Bargaining Impasse’PART IVFAIRNESS, TRUST AND CROWDING OUT 13. Elizabeth Hoffman, Kevin McCabe, Keith Shachat and Vernon Smith (1994), ‘Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games’14. Elizabeth Hoffman, Kevin McCabe and Vernon L. Smith (1996), ‘Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games’15. Robert H. Frank, Thomas Gilovich and Dennis T. Regan (1993), ‘Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation?’16. Ernest Fehr, Alexander Klein and Klaus M. Schmidt (2007), ‘Fairness and Contract Design’17. Iris Bohnet, Bruno S. Frey and Steffen Huck (2001), ‘More Order with Less Law: On Contract Enforcement, Trust, and Crowding’18. Daylian M. Cain, George Loewenstein and Don A. Moore (2005), ‘The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest’PART VREASONING ABOUT RISK AND LOSS ALegal Rules and Deterrence19. Lewis Kornhauser and Andrew Schotter (1990), ‘An Experimental Study of Single-Actor Accidents’20. Uri Gneezy and Aldo Rustichini (2000), ‘A Fine Is a Price’BAssessment of Risk by Judges and Juries21. Kim A. Kamin and Jeffrey J. Rachlinski (1995),’ Ex Post ≠ Ex Ante: Determining Liability in Hindsight’22. Alison C. Smith and Edith Greene (2005), ‘Conduct and its Consequences: Attempts at Debiasing Jury Judgments’23. W. Kip Viscusi and Richard J. Zeckhauser (2004), ‘The Denominator Blindness Effect: Accident Frequencies and the Misjudgment of Recklessness’CImpact of Decision Rules on Juries24. Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski and Andrew J. Wistrich (2001), ‘Inside the Judicial Mind’25. David Schkade, Cass R. Sunstein and Daniel Kahneman (2000), ‘Deliberating About Dollars: The Severity Shift’26. Serena Guarnaschelli, Richard D. McKelvey and Thomas R. Palfrey (2000), ‘An Experimental Study of Jury Decision Rules’Name Index

‘Experimental analysis under controlled conditions provides a unique perspective on how people respond to legal rules and institutions. The Arlen–Talley volume is a superb collection of the seminal articles, assembled in a coherent way to help the reader understand and assess the potential of this body of research.’