Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-nqxm9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-10T15:56:55.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Nicholas Bardsley
Nicholas Bardsley*
Affiliation:
National Centre for Research Methods, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experimental dictator games have been used to explore unselfish behaviour. Evidence is presented here, however, that subjects’ generosity can be reversed by allowing them to take a partner's money. Dictator game giving therefore does not reveal concern for consequences to others existing independently of the environment, as posited in rational choice theory. It may instead be an artefact of experimentation. Alternatively, evaluations of options depend on the composition of the choice set. Implications of these possibilities are explored for experimental methodology and charitable donations respectively. The data favour the artefact interpretation, suggesting that demand characteristics of experimental protocols merit investigation, and that economic analysis should not exclude context-specific social norms.

Keywords

AltruismArtificialityExperimentsMethodology

JEL classification

D63: Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement D64: Altruism • Philanthropy • Intergenerational Transfers C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior C70: General
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 122 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10683-007-9172-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Adair, G. (1984). The Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artefact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 334–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agresti, A. (1992). A survey of exact inference for contingency tables. Statistical Science, 7, 131–177.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (2002). Giving according to GARP: an experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70, 737–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardsley, N. (2005). Experimental economics and the artificiality of alteration. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12, 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergstrom, T., Blume, L., & Varian, H. (1986). On the private provision of public goods. Journal of Public Economics, 29, 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. (1999). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games: comment. American Economic Review, 89, 335–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, G., & Ockenfels, A. (1998). Strategy and equity: an ERC-analysis of the Güth-van Damme game. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 62, 215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J., & Solà, C. (2001). Reference points and negative reciprocity in simple sequential games. Games and Economic Behavior, 36, 138–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 817–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, T. L., Frykblom, P., & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Hardnose the dictator. American Economic Review, 92, 1218–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J., Sadiraj, K., & Sadiraj, V. (2002). Trust, fear, reciprocity and altruism (Working Paper). University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Dana, J., Weber, R. A., & Xi Kuang, J. (2005). Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness (Discussion Paper). University of Carnegie Mellon. Economic Theory, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Davies, J. B., & Best, D. W. (1996). Demand characteristics and research into drug use. Psychological Health, 11, 291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dilman, I. (1996). Science and psychology. In O'Hear, A. (Ed.), Verstehen and human understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, M., & Isherwood, B. (1979). The world of goods: towards an anthropology of consumption. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. J. (1996). Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behavior, 16, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: another look at the jacknife. Annals of Statistics, 7, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faith, M. S., Wong, J. Y., & Allison, D. B. (1998). Demand characteristics of the research setting can influence indexes of negative affect-induced eating in obese individuals. Obesity Research, 6, 134136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falk, A., Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). On the nature of fair behavior. Economic Inquiry, 41, 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fechner, G. (1966 [1860]). Elements of psychophysics (Vol. 1). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez, E., & Turk, D. C. (1994). Demand characteristics underlying differential ratings of sensory versus affective components of pain. Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 17, 375–390.Google ScholarPubMed
Greenwood, J. D. (1982). On the relation between laboratory experiments and social behaviour: causal explanation and generalisation. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour, 12, 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, K. J., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2005). Nobody's watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous economic game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harré, R., & Secord, P. (1972). The explanation of social behaviour. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. L. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. American Economic Review, 86, 653–660.Google Scholar
Jones, S. R. G. (1992). Was there a Hawthorne effect? American Journal of Sociology, 98, 451–468.Google Scholar
Lampinen, J. M., Neuschatz, J. S., & Payne, D. G. (1999). Source attributions and false memories: a test of the demand characteristics account. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 130–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
List, J. A. (2007, forthcoming). On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. Journal of Political Economy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1995). Incorporating a stochastic element into decision theories. European Economic Review, 39, 641–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomes, G., & Sugden, R. (1998). Testing different stochastic specifications of risky choice. Economica, 65, 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, C. M. (1999). The item and list methods of directed forgetting: test differences and the role of demand characteristics. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 123–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKelvey, R. D., & Palfrey, T. R. (1995). Quantal response equilibria for normal form games. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 6–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: with particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orne, M. T. (1973). Communication by the total experimental situation. In Pliner, P., Krames, L., & Al-loway, T. (Eds.), Communication and affect (2nd ed., pp. 157–191). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parducci, A., & Wedell, D. (1986). The category effect with rating scales: number of categories, number of stimuli, and method of presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 496–516.Google ScholarPubMed
Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. American Economic Review, 83, 1281–1302.Google Scholar
Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 183–206.3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bardsley supplementary material

Bardsley supplementary material 1
Download Bardsley supplementary material(File)
File 74.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bardsley supplementary material

Bardsley supplementary material 2
Download Bardsley supplementary material(File)
File 14.3 KB