While most papers on team decision-making find that teams behave more selfishly, less trustingly and less altruistically than individuals, Cason and Mui (1997) report that teams are more altruistic than individuals in a dictator game. Using a within-subjects design we re-examine group polarization by letting subjects make individual as well as team decisions in an experimental dictator game. In our experiment teams are more selfish than individuals, and the most selfish team member has the strongest influence on team decisions. Various explanations for the different findings in Cason and Mui (1997) and in our paper are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Andreoni, J., & Petrie, R. (2004). Public goods experiments without confidentiality: a glimpse into fund-raising. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1605–1623.
Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. S. (1999). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games: Comment. American Economic Review, 89, 335–339.
Bornstein, G., & Yaniv, I. (1998). Individual and group behavior in the ultimatum game: are groups more ‘rational’ players? Experimental Economics, 1, 101–108.
Bornstein, G., Kugler, T., & Ziegelmeyer, A. (2004). Individual and group decisions in the centipede game: are groups more ‘rational’ players? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 599–605.
Bosman, R., & van Winden, F. (2002). Emotional hazard in a power-to-take experiment. Economic Journal, 112, 147–169.
Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Cason, T., & Mui, V.-L. (1997). A laboratory study of group polarization in the team dictator game. Economic Journal, 107, 1465–1483.
Cooper, D. J., & Kagel, J. H. (2005). Are two heads better than one? Team versus individual play in signaling games. American Economic Review, 95, 477–509.
Cox, J. C. (2002). Trust, reciprocity, and other-regarding preferences: groups vs. individuals and males vs. females. In R. Zwick & A. Rapoport (Eds.), Advances in experimental business research (pp. 331–350). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Cox, J. C., & Deck, C. A. (2006). When are women more generous than men? Economic Inquiry, 44, 587–598.
Cox, J. C., & Hayne, S. C. (2006). Barking up the right tree: Are small groups rational agents? Experimental Economics, 9, 209–222.
Davis, D. D., & Harless, D. W. (1996). Group vs. individual performance in a price-searching experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 215–227.
Davis, J. (1992). Some compelling intuitions about group consensus decisions, theoretical and empirical research and interpersonal aggregation phenomena: Selected examples 1950–1990. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 3–38.
Dufwenberg, M., & Muren, A. (2006). Gender composition in teams. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 61, 50–54.
Eliaz, K., Ray, D., & Razin, R. (2006). Choice shifts in groups: A decision-theoretic basis. American Economic Review, 96, 1321–1332.
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for readymade economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178.
Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J., Savin, N., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347–369.
Gillet, J., Schram, A., & Sonnemans, J. (2007). The tragedy of the commons revisited: the importance of group decision-making (Working Paper). University of Amsterdam.
Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 367–388.
Güth, W., Schmidt, C., & Sutter, M. (2007). Bargaining outside the lab: A newspaper experiment of a three-person ultimatum game. Economic Journal, 117, 449–469.
Kahnemann, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76, 728–741.
Kerr, N., MacCoun, R., & Kramer, G. (1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687–719.
Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2005). The decision maker matters: individual versus group behavior in experimental beauty-contest games. Economic Journal, 115, 200–223.
Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2007). Individual versus group behavior and the role of the decision making procedure in gift-exchange experiments. Empirica, 34, 63–88.
Kugler, T., Bornstein, G., Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2007, forthcoming). Trust between individuals and groups: groups are less trusting than individuals but just as trustworthy. Journal of Economic Psychology.
Levine, J., & Moreland, R. L. (1998). Small groups. In G. Fisher & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, 4th edn., pp. 415–469). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maciejovsky, B., & Budescu, D. V. (2007). Collective induction without cooperation? Learning and knowledge transfer in cooperative groups and competitive auctions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 854–870.
Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125–135.
Rockenbach, B., Sadrieh, A., & Mathauschek, B. (2007). Teams take the better risks. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63, 412–422.
Stoner, J. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Unpublished master thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston.
Sutter, M. (2005). Are four heads better than two? An experimental beauty-contest game with teams of different size. Economics Letters, 88, 41–46.
Sutter, M. (2007). Are teams prone to myopic loss aversion? An experimental study on individual versus team investment behavior. Economics Letters, 97, 128–132.
Sutter, M., Kocher, M. G., & Strauß, S. (2006). Individuals and teams in UMTS-license auctions (Working Paper). University of Innsbruck.
Teger, A., & Pruitt, D. (1967). Components of group risk taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 189–205.
Wildschut, T., Lodewijkx, H. F. M., & Insko, C. A. (2001). Toward a reconciliation of diverging perspectives on interindividual-intergroup discontinuity: the role of procedural interdependence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 273–285.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Luhan, W.J., Kocher, M.G. & Sutter, M. Group polarization in the team dictator game reconsidered. Exp Econ 12, 26–41 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-007-9188-7
- Dictator game
- Team behavior
- Social preferences