Experimental Economics

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 583–610

Dictator games: a meta study

Article

Abstract

Over the last 25 years, more than a hundred dictator game experiments have been published. This meta study summarises the evidence. Exploiting the fact that most experiments had to fix parameters they did not intend to test, in multiple regression the meta study is able to assess the effect of single manipulations, controlling for a host of alternative explanatory factors. The resulting rich dataset also provides a testbed for comparing alternative specifications of the statistical model for analysing dictator game data. It shows how Tobit models (assuming that dictators would even want to take money) and hurdle models (assuming that the decision to give a positive amount is separate from the choice of amount, conditional on giving) provide additional insights.

Keywords

Dictator game Meta-study Multiple regression Tobit Hurdle model 

JEL Classification

C24 C91 D03 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10683_2011_9283_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (144 kb)
(PDF 164 KB)

References

  1. Aguiar, F., Branas-Garza, P., Cobo-Reyes, R., Jimenez, N., & Miller, L. M. (2009). Are women expected to be more generous? Experimental Economics, 12, 93–98. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoni, J., & Bernheim, B. D. (2009). Social image and the 50–50 norm. A theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica, 77, 1607–1636. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardsley, N. (2008). Dictator game giving. Altruism or artefact? Experimental Economics, 11, 122–133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackwell, C. (2007). A meta-analysis of tax compliance experiments. http://aysps.gsu.edu/isp/files/ISP_CONFERENCES_TAX_COMPLIANCE_AND_EVASION_BLACKWELL.pdf.
  5. Bolton, G. E., Katok, E., & Zwick, R. (1998). Dictator game giving. Rules of fairness versus acts of kindness. International Journal of Game Theory, 27, 269–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brañas-Garza, P. (2007). Promoting helping behavior with framing in dictator games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28, 477–486. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brañas-Garza, P., Cobo-Reyes, R., Espinosa, M. P., Jiménez, N., Kovárík, J., & Ponti, G. (2010). Altruism and social integration. Games and Economic Behavior, 69(2), 249–257. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brosig, J., Riechmann, T., & Weimann, J. (2007). Selfish in the end? An investigation of consistency and stability of individual behavior. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2035/1/MPRA_paper_2035.pdf.
  9. Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Experiments in strategic interaction. New York: Sage. Google Scholar
  10. Cárdenas, J. C., & Carpenter, J. (2008). Behavioural development economics: lessons from field labs in the developing world. Journal of Development Studies, 44, 311–338. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Croson, R. T. A., & Marks, M. (2000). Step returns in threshold public goods. A meta- and experimental analysis. Experimental Economics, 2(3), 239–259. Google Scholar
  12. Dana, J., Daylian, M. C., & Dawes, R. M. (2006). What you don’t know won’t hurt me. Costly (but quiet) exit in dictator games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 193–201. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7, 177–188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Druckman, D. (1994). Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation. A meta-analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38(3), 507–556. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men?: Evidence from dictator experiments. Economic Journal, 108, 726–735. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eckel, C. C., Grossman, P. J., & Johnston, R. M. (2005). An experimental test of the crowding out hypothesis. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 1543–1560. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eichenberger, R., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1998). Rational moralists: the role of fairness in democratic economic politics. Public Choice, 94, 191–210. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engel, C. (2005). Generating predictability. Institutional analysis and institutional design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engel, C. (2007). How much collusion? A meta-analysis on oligopoly experiments. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 3, 491–549. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Epps, T. W., & Singleton, K. J. (1986). An omnibus test for the two-sample problem using the empirical characteristic function. Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation, 26, 177–203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347–369. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frey, B., & Bohnet, I. (1995). Institutions affect fairness. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 151, 286–303. Google Scholar
  23. Goeree, J. K., McConnell, M. A., Mitchell, T., Tromp, T., & Yariv, L. (2010). The 1/d law of giving. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2(1), 183–203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goerg, S. J., & Kaiser, J. (2009). Non-parametric testing of distributions—the epps-singleton two-sample test using the empirical characteristic function. Stata Journal, 9, 454–465. Google Scholar
  25. Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 367–388. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harbord, R. M., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2008). Meta-regression in stata. Stata Journal, 8, 493–519. Google Scholar
  27. Harless, D. W., & Camerer, C. F. (1994). The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica, 62, 1251–1289. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Henrich, J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Economic man’ in cross-cultural perspective. Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 795–815. Google Scholar
  29. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. L. (1994). Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 346–380. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hopfensitz, A. (2009). Previous outcomes and reference dependence. A meta study of repeated investment tasks with and without restricted feedback. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/16096/1/Hopfensitz_2009.pdf.
  31. Houser, D., & Schunk, D. (2009). Social environments with competitive pressure: gender effects in the decisions of German schoolchildren. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 634–641. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huck, S., Normann, H.-T., & Oechssler, J. (2004). Two are few and four are many. Number effects in experimental oligopolies. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 53, 435–446. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones, G. (2008). Are smarter groups more cooperative? Evidence from prisoner’s dilemma experiments, 1959–2003. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68(3-4), 489–497. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of Business, 59, S285–S300. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leider, S., Möbius, M. M., Rosenblat, T., & Quoc-Anh, D. (2009). What do we expect from our friends? https://mercury.smu.edu.sg/rsrchpubupload/15345/ExpectFriends.pdf.
  36. Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 153–174. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McDowell, A. (2003). From the help desk. Hurdle models. Stata Journal, 3, 178–184. Google Scholar
  38. Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & van de Kuilen, G. (2004). Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments. Evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 7, 171–188. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oxoby, R. J., & Spraggon, J. (2008). Mine and yours. Property rights in dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 65, 703–713. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Percoco, M., & Nijkamp, P. (2009). Estimating individual rates of discount. A meta-analysis. Applied Economics Letters, 16(12), 1235–1239. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Prante, T., Thacher, J. A., & Berrens, R. P. (2007). Evaluating Coasean bargaining experiments with meta-analysis. Economics Bulletin, 3(68), 1–7. Google Scholar
  42. Rigdon, M., Ishii, K., Watabe, M., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Minimal social cues in the dictator game. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 358–367. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation. Perspectives of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Google Scholar
  44. Selten, R. (1967). Die Strategiemethode zur Erforschung des eingeschränkt rationalen Verhaltens im Rahmen eines Oligopolexperiments. Beiträge zur experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung. Ernst Sauermann. Tübingen: Mohr: 136–168. Google Scholar
  45. Stanley, T. D. (2001). Wheat from chaff. Meta-analysis as quantitative literature review. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(3), 131–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thompson, S. G., & Pocock, S. J. (1991). Can meta-analyses be trusted? Lancet, 338(8775), 1127–1130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weizsäcker, G. (2010). Do we follow others when we should? A simple test of rational expectations. American Economic Review, 100, 2340–2360. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zelmer, J. (2003). Linear public goods. A meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 6, 299–310. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective GoodsBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations