Experimental Economics

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 500–511 | Cite as

‘Give me a chance!’ An experiment in social decision under risk

  • Michal Krawczyk
  • Fabrice Le LecEmail author


This paper reports the results of a ‘probabilistic dictator game’ experiment in which subjects were given an option to share chances to win a prize with a dummy player. Using a within-subject design we manipulated two aspects of the decision, the relative cost of sharing and the nature of the lottery: the draws were either independent for the two players (‘noncompetitive’ condition) or one’s success meant other’s failure (‘competitive’ condition). We also asked for decisions in a standard, non-probabilistic, setting. The main results can be summarized as follows: first, a substantial fraction of subjects do share chances to win, also in the competitive treatments, thus showing concern for the other player that cannot be explained by outcome-based models. Second, subjects share less in the competitive treatment than in other treatments, indicating that procedural fairness alone cannot explain the data. Overall, these results suggest that models aiming at generalizing social concerns to risky environments will have to rely on a mix of distributive and procedural fairness.


Social preferences Other-regarding preferences Inequity aversion Social concern Social preferences under risk Procedural fairness 

JEL Classification

A13 C65 C72 D63 D03 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersen, S., Harrsion, G., Lau, M., & Rutstrom, E. (2006). Elicitation using multiple price list formats. Experimental Economics, 9, 383–405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (2002). Giving according to GARP: an experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70, 737–754. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: a theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. American Economic Review, 90, 166–193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolton, G. E., Brandts, J., & Ockenfels, A. (2005). Fair procedures: evidence from games involving lotteries. Economic Journal, 115, 1054–1076. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brennan, G., Güth, W., Gonzalez, L., & Levati, M. V. (2008). Attitudes toward private and collective risks in individual and strategic choice situations. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. Google Scholar
  6. Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quartely Journal of Economics, 117, 817–869. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dana, J., Weber, R., & Kuang, J. (2007). Exploiting moral wriggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Economic Theory, 33, 67–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Engelmann, D., & Strobel, M. (2004). Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. American Economic Review, 94, 857–869. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gächter, S., & Riedl, A. (2005). Moral property rights in bargaining with infeasible claims. Management Science, 51, 249–263. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Güth, W., Levati, V., & Ploner, M. (2008). On the social dimension of time and risk preferences: an experimental study. Economic Inquiry, 46, 261–272. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karni, E., Salmon, T., & Sopher, B. (2008). Individual sense of fairness: an experimental study. Experimental Economics, 11, 174–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koch, A. K., & Normann, H.-T. (2008). Giving in dictator games: regard for others or regard by others? Southern Economic Journal, 75, 223–231. Google Scholar
  15. Monin, B., & Miller, D. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 33–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Murnighan, J. K., Oeschb, J. M., & Pillutlac, M. (2001). Player types and self-impression management in dictatorship games: two experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 37, 388–414. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Trautmann, S. (2009). A tractable model of process fairness under risk. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 803–813. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economic SciencesUniversity of WarsawWarsawPoland
  2. 2.Lille Economics and Management UMR CNRS 8179Catholic University of LilleLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations