The dictator game psychology

There are specific socio-cultural norms that impact human behavior in these cases. However, interpreting experimental results with reference to real-life settings should be done with caution since artificial conditions impose limits and do not account for true moral pressures that could influence behavior. One beneficial use of a simple dictator game is to determine how economic behavior is elicited by institutionalized manipulation List This aspect is highly applicable to corporations and governments in a real-world setting.

Brosig-Koch, Jeannette, et al. Engel, Christoph. Dictator Games: A Meta Study. List, John A. Schurter, Karl, and Bart Wilson. Need a custom Research Paper sample written from scratch by professional specifically for you? Dictator Game Experiment and Behavioral Economics. We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. If you continue, we will assume that you agree to our Cookies Policy.

Introduction One of the classical assumptions of behavioral economics is that people act with self-interest in mind. Learn More. This research paper on Dictator Game Experiment and Behavioral Economics was written and submitted by your fellow student. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. Removal Request.

If you are the copyright owner of this paper and no longer wish to have your work published on IvyPanda. Personality in dictator and ultimatum games. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 10 3 , Google Scholar. Dana, J. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2 , — Exploiting moral wriggle room: Experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Economic Theory, 33 , 67— Engel, C.

Dictator games: A Meta study. Experimental Economics, 14 4 , — Forsythe, R. Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6 3 , — Franzen, A. Normally, she is encouraged to give something to the dictator through a specification in the game's rules that her endowment will be increased by a factor from the researchers.

The experiments rarely end in the subgame perfect Nash equilibrium of "no trust. Psychology Wiki Explore. Animal defensive behavior Kinesis Animal escape behavior Cooperative breeding Sexual cannibalism Cannibalism zoology Animal aggressive behavior.

Recent Blogs Community portal forum. Explore Wikis Community Central. Register Don't have an account? Dictator game. View source. History Talk 0. However, it was only in that a paper by Forsythe et al. In the original dictator game, the dictator and the recipient were randomly selected and completely unknown.

However it was found that the result was different depending on the social distance between the two parties. The level of "social distance" that a dictator and the recipient has changes the ratio of endowment that the dictator is willing to give.

If the dictator in the game has anonymity with the recipient, resulting in a high level of social distance , they are most likely to give less endowment. Whereas players with a low level of social distance , whether they are very familiar with each other or shallowly acquainted, are more likely to give a higher proportion of the endowment to the recipient. When players are within an organization, they most likely have a low level of social distance.

Within organizations, altruism and prosocial behavior are heavily relied on in dictator games for optimal organizational output. In a group of researchers at the University of Iowa conducted a controlled experiment to evaluate the homo economicus model of behavior with groups of voluntarily recruited economics, accounting, and business students. These experimental results contradict the homo economicus model, suggesting that players in the dictator role take fairness and potential adverse consequences into account when making decisions about how much utility to give the recipient.

Experimental results have indicated that adults often allocate money to the recipients, reducing the amount of money the dictator receives. A number of studies have examined psychological framing of the dictator game with a version called "taking" in which the player "takes" resources from the recipient's predetermined endowment, rather than choosing the amount to "give".

In , Bhogal et al. This study found no relationship between attractiveness and altruism. If these experiments appropriately reflect individuals' preferences outside of the laboratory, these results appear to demonstrate that either:.

Additional experiments have shown that subjects maintain a high degree of consistency across multiple versions of the dictator game in which the cost of giving varies.

The latter implies they are maximizing a utility function that incorporates recipient's welfare and not only their own welfare.

This is the core of the "other-regarding" preferences. A number of experiments have shown donations are substantially larger when the dictators are aware of the recipient's need of the money.

The idea that the highly mixed results of the dictator game prove or disprove rationality in economics is not widely accepted. Results offer both support of the classical assumptions and notable exception which have led to improved holistic economic models of behavior. Some authors have suggested that giving in the dictator game does not entail that individuals wish to maximize others' benefit altruism. Instead they suggest that individuals have some negative utility associated with being seen as greedy, and are avoiding this judgment by the experimenter.

Some experiments have been performed to test this hypothesis with mixed results. Additionally, the mixed results of the dictator game point to other behavioral attributes that may influence how individuals play the game. Specifically, people are motivated by altruism and how their actions are perceived by others, rather than solely avoiding being viewed as greedy.

One experiment showed that females are more likely to value altruism in their actions than males. They are also more likely to be more altruistic towards other females than to other males. The Trust Game is similar to the dictator game, but with an added first step. The trustor is also informed that whatever they send will be tripled by the experimenter. Then the trustee now acting as a dictator decides how much of this increased endowment to allocate to the trustor.

Thus the dictator's or trustee's partner must decide how much of the initial endowment to trust with the dictator in the hopes of receiving the same amount or more in return. In this game, it is all about trust and trustworthiness in order to determine the behavior of the two players. Oftentimes, studies found that having more trust resulted in the participant losing more in the end.

Betrayal aversion is another major factor that weighs the impact of trust and risk, determining whether trusting another person is equivalent to taking a risky bet. Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents. It has applications in all fields of social science, as well as in logic, systems science and computer science. Originally, it addressed two-person zero-sum games, in which each participant's gains or losses are exactly balanced by those of other participants.

In the 21st century, game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations, and is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, and computers.