Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-dkgms Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T21:01:15.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dictator games: a meta study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Christoph Engel
Christoph Engel*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Kurt-Schumacher-Straße 10, 53113 Bonn, Germany
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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 gameMeta-studyMultiple regressionTobitHurdle model

JEL classification

C24: Truncated and Censored Models • Switching Regression Models • Threshold Regression Models C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , November 2011 , pp. 583 - 610
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi: 10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

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
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.Google Scholar
Bardsley, N. (2008). Dictator game giving. Altruism or artefact? Experimental Economics, 11, 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, C. (2007). A meta-analysis of tax compliance experiments. http://aysps.gsu.edu/isp/files/ISP_CONFERENCES_TAX_COMPLIANCE_AND_EVASION_BLACKWELL.pdf.Google Scholar
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
Brañas-Garza, P. (2007). Promoting helping behavior with framing in dictator games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28,477-486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Experiments in strategic interaction. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
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
Croson, R. T. A., & Marks, M. (2000). Step returns in threshold public goods. A meta- and experimental analysis. Experimental Economics, 2(3), 239–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7, 177188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Druckman, D. (1994). Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation. A meta-analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38(3), 507–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1998). Are women less selfish than men?: Evidence from dictator experiments. Economic Journal, 108, 726–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Eichenberger, R., & Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1998). Rational moralists: the role of fairness in democratic economic politics. Public Choice, 94, 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, C. (2005). Generating predictability. Institutional analysis and institutional design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, C. (2007). How much collusion? A meta-analysis on oligopoly experiments. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 3, 491–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
Frey, B., & Bohnet, I. (1995). Institutions affect fairness. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 151, 286–303.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbord, R. M., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2008). Meta-regression in stata. Stata Journal, 8, 493–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harless, D. W., & Camerer, C. F. (1994). The predictive utility of generalized expected utility theories. Econometrica, 62, 1251–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
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.Google Scholar
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
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
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
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of Business, 59, S285–S300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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
McDowell, A. (2003). From the help desk. Hurdle models. Stata Journal, 3, 178–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Oxoby, R. J., & Spraggon, J. (2008). Mine and yours. Property rights in dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 65, 703–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percoco, M., & Nijkamp, P. (2009). Estimating individual rates of discount. A meta-analysis. Applied Economics Letters, 16(12), 1235–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prante, T., Thacher, J. A., & Berrens, R. P. (2007). Evaluating Coasean bargaining experiments with meta-analysis. Economics Bulletin, 3(68), 1–7.Google Scholar
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
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation. Perspectives of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
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
Stanley, T. D. (2001). Wheat from chaff. Meta-analysis as quantitative literature review. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(3), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. G., & Pocock, S. J. (1991). Can meta-analyses be trusted? Lancet, 338(8775), 1127–1130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weizsäcker, G. (2010). Do we follow others when we should? A simple test of rational expectations. American Economic Review, 100, 2340–2360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelmer, J. (2003). Linear public goods. A meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 6, 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Engel supplementary material

Dictator Games: A Meta Study Online Appendix
Download Engel supplementary material(File)
File 147 KB