Framing effects in the prisoner’s dilemma but not in the dictator game

  • Sebastian J. GoergEmail author
  • David Rand
  • Gari Walkowitz
Original Paper


We systematically investigate prisoner’s dilemma and dictator games with valence framing. We find that give versus take frames influence subjects’ behavior and beliefs in the prisoner’s dilemma games but not in the dictator games. We conclude that valence framing has a stronger impact on behavior in strategic interactions, i.e., in the prisoner’s dilemma game, than in allocation tasks without strategic interaction, i.e., in the dictator game.


Prisoner’s dilemma Dictator game Framing Give Take Cooperation Generosity 

JEL Classification

A13 C72 C91 F51 Z13 


Supplementary material

40881_2019_81_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (75 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 76 kb)


  1. Andreoni, J. (1995). Warm glow versus cold prickle: The effects of positive and negative framing on cooperation in experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics,110, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arechar, A., Gächter, S., & Molleman, L. (2018). Conducting interactive experiments online. Experimental Economics,21(1), 99–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardsley, G. (2008). Dictator game giving: Altruism or artefact? Experimental Economics,11(2), 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bolton, G., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review,90(1), 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brañas-Garza, P., Capraro, V., & Rascón-Ramírez, E. (2018). Gender differences in altruism on Mechanical Turk: Expectations and actual behaviour. Economics Letters,170, 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Capraro, V., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Do the right thing: Experimental evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality. Judgment and Decision Making,13(1), 99–111.Google Scholar
  7. Capraro, V., & Vanzo, A. (2019). The power of moral words: Loaded language generates framing effects in the extreme dictator game. Judgment and Decision Making,14(3), 309–317.Google Scholar
  8. Cartwright, E. (2016). A comment on framing effects in linear public good games. Journal of the Economic Science Association,2(1), 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cartwright, E., & Ramalingam, A. (2019). Framing in public good games: Choices or externalities? Economics Letters,179, 42–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics,117(3), 817–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cookson, R. (2000). Framing effects in public goods experiments. Experimental Economics,3, 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cox, J. C., Friedman, D., & Sadiraj, V. (2008). Revealed altruism. Econometrica,76, 31–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cox, J. C., Ostrom, E., Sadiraj, V., & Walker, J. M. (2013). Provision versus appropriation in symmetric and asymmetric social dilemmas. Southern Economic Journal,79, 496–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dreber, A., Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., & Rand, D. (2013). Do people care about social context? Framing effects in dictator games. Experimental Economics,16, 349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dufwenberg, M., Gächter, S., & Hennig-Schmidt, H. (2011). The framing of games and the psychology of play. Games and Economic Behavior,73(2), 459–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eichenberger, R., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1998). Rational moralists: The role of fairness in democratic economic politics. Public Choice,94, 191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellingsen, T., Johannesson, M., Mollerstrom, J., & Munkhammar, S. (2012). Social framing effects: Preferences or beliefs? Games and Economic Behavior,76(1), 117–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics,14, 583–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engel, C., & Rand, D. G. (2014). What does ‘clean’ really mean? The implicit framing of decontextualized experiments. Economics Letters,122, 386–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Qarterly Journal of Economics,114(3), 817–868.Google Scholar
  21. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental economics,10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fosgaard, T. R., Hansen, L. G., & Wengström, E. (2017). Framing and misperception in public good experiments. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics,119(2), 435–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gächter, S., Gerhards, L., & Nosenzo, D. (2017a). The importance of peers for compliance with norms of fair sharing. European Economic Review,97, 72–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gächter, S., & Herrmann, B. (2011). The limits of self-governance when cooperators get punished: Experimental evidence from urban and rural Russia. European Economic Review,55(2), 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gächter, S., Kölle, F., & Quercia, S. (2017b). Reciprocity and the tragedies of maintaining and providing the commons. Nature Human Behaviour,1(9), 650–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gangadharan, L., & Nikiforakis, N. (2009). Does the size of the action set matter for cooperation? Economics Letters,104, 115–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gerlach, P., & Jaeger, B. (2016). Another frame, another game? In A. Hopfenspitz & E. Lori (Eds.), Proceedings of norms, actions, games. Toulouse: Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
  28. Goerg, S. J., & Walkowitz, G. (2010). On the prevalence of framing effects across subject-pools in a two-person cooperation game. Journal of Economic Psychology,31(6), 849–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greiner, B. (2015). Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE. Journal of the Economic Science Association,1, 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grossman, P. J., & Eckel, C. C. (2015). Giving versus taking for a cause. Economics Letters,132, 28–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. (1994). Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior,7(3), 346–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Khadjavi, M., & Lange, A. (2015). Doing good or doing harm: Experimental evidence on giving and taking in public good games. Experimental Economics,18(3), 432–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Korenok, O., Millner, E. L., & Razzolini, L. (2014). Taking, giving, and impure altruism in dictator games. Experimental Economics,17(3), 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krupka, E., & Weber, R. (2013). Identifying social norms using coordination games: Why does dictator game sharing vary? Journal of the European Economic Association,11(3), 495–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Liberman, V., Samuels, S. M., & Ross, L. (2004). The name of the game: Predictive power of reputations vs. situational labels in determining prisoner’s dilemma game moves. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,30, 1175–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. List, J. A. (2004). Young, selfish and male: Field evidence of social preferences. The Economic Journal,114(492), 121–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. List, J. A. (2007). On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. Journal of Political Economy,115(3), 482–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nikiforakis, N. (2010). Feedback, punishment and cooperation in public good experiments. Games and Economic Behavior,68, 689–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oxoby, R. J., & Spraggon, J. (2008). Mine and yours: Property rights in dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,65(3), 703–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sonnemans, J., Schram, A., & Offerman, T. (1998). Public good provision and public bad prevention: The effect of framing. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,34, 143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tappin, B. M., & Capraro, V. (2018). Doing good vs. avoiding bad in prosocial choice: A refined test and extension of the morality preference hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,79, 64–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Willinger, M., & Ziegelmeyer, A. (1999). Framing and cooperation in public good games: an experiment with an interior solution. Economics Letters,65, 323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Economic Science Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TUMCS for Biotechnology and SustainabilityTechnical University MunichStraubingGermany
  2. 2.TUM School of ManagementTechnical University MunichMunichGermany
  3. 3.IZA-Institute of Labor EconomicsBonnGermany
  4. 4.MPI for Research on Collective GoodsBonnGermany
  5. 5.Sloan School of ManagementMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  6. 6.Department of Brain and Cognitive SciencesMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  7. 7.TUM School of Governance and Center Digitization BavariaTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany
  8. 8.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations