Abstract
We study the importance of fairness norms as focal points in steplevel public good games with large equilibrium sets and heterogeneous agents. An ex-ante dictator task shows that individuals hold, and expect others to hold, well-defined yet conflicting normative views of “appropriate” contribution rules related to effciency, equality, and equity. Heterogeneity causes frictions on aggregate but allocations that are normatively focal remain prominent in the interaction. Importantly, an allocation’s normative appeal matters greatly for its stability compared to other less focal equilibria. Finally, while the extent of ex-ante normative disagreement within a group does not predict its likelihood of mis-coordination, normative viewpoints and expectations (as elicited ex-ante) do predict individual initial choices and equilibrium selection at the group level.