Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-dlb68 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T22:21:42.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Time as a medium of reward in three social preference experiments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Charles N. Noussair*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and CentER, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Jan Stoop*
Affiliation:
Erasmus School of Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

We use time, rather than money, as the salient component of subjects’ incentives in three workhorse experimental paradigms. The use of waiting time can be interpreted as a special type of real effort condition, in which it is particularly straightforward to achieve experimental control over incentives. The three experiments, commonly employed to study social preferences, are the dictator game, the ultimatum game and the trust game. All subjects in a session earn the same participation fee, but their choices affect the time at which they are permitted to leave the laboratory. Decisions that are associated with greater own payoff translate into the right to depart earlier. The modal proposal in both the dictator and ultimatum games is an equal split of the waiting time. In the trust game, there is substantial trust and reciprocity. Overall, social preferences are evident in time allocation decisions. We compare subjects’ decisions over time and money and find no significant differences in average decisions. The pattern of results suggests that results obtained in the laboratory with money as the medium of reward generalize to other reward media.

Type
Original Paper
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 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:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-014-9415-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Ariely, D, Loewenstein, G, & Prelec, D (2003). ’Coherent arbitrariness’: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73106. 10.1162/00335530360535153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, J, Dickhaut, J, & McCabe, K (1995). Trust, reciprocity, and social history. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 122142. 10.1006/game.1995.1027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, R, Rauhut, H, Prade, S, & Helbing, D (2012). Bargaining over time in ultimatum game experiments. Social Science Research, 41(2), 372379. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.09.009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berns, G, Capra, C, Moore, S, & Noussair, C (2007). A shocking experiment: New evidence on probability weighting and common ratio violations. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(4), 234242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruyneel, A., Dewitte, S., Diecidue, E., & Festjens, A. (2013). About time: Individuals value risky time gains and losses linearly. Catholic University of Leuven, Mimeo.Google Scholar
Cooper, DJ, & Dutcher, EG (2011). The dynamics of responder behavior in ultimatum games: A meta-study. Experimental Economics, 14(4), 519546. 10.1007/s10683-011-9280-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coursey, D, Hovis, J, & Schulze, W (1987). The disparity between willingness to accept and willingness to pay measures of value. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 102(3), 679690. 10.2307/1884223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, C (2011). Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics, 14, 583610. 10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oosterbeek, H, Sloof, R, & van de Kuilen, G (2004). Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 7, 171188. 10.1023/B:EXEC.0000026978.14316.74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saini, R, & Monga, A (2008). How i decide depends on what i spend: Use of heuristics is greater for time than for money. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(6), 914922. 10.1086/525503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, V (1982). Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. American Economic Review, 72(5), 923955.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Noussair and Stoop supplementary material

Online Appendix: Instructions
Download Noussair and Stoop supplementary material(File)
File 24.6 KB