Articles - Eckel

10 important questions on Articles - Eckel

What is the common explanation of why dictators do not offer 0?

The common explanation for why dictators do not just offer zero in a dictator game is that participants are motivated by factors in addition to monetary payoffs, such as altruism or fairness.

The experiment is designed in such a way that the usual anonymous recipient is now a reputable charity. In the standard dictator game, the subjects know that the other players are just like themselves. Now the subjects know the recipient is a charity. This treatment substantially increases altruistic giving. We can infer that: -

- Altruism is a motivating factor in human behaviour in general  - Even under double

-anonymous conditions, an increase in the “deservingness” of a recipient increases the quantity of donations by experimental subjects

Describe the expirimenter effect

the effect from the experimenter knowing the individual’s decision. Altruistic behaviour is not due to fairness, but rather to a social concern for what others may think, and for being held in high regard by others.
  • Higher grades + faster learning
  • Never study anything twice
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Discover Study Smart

Is Hypothesis: “if offers are due solely to proposers’ concerns with fairness, the offers will be the same in the two games”. Met?

Result: outcomes in the two games differ (in dictator game, 22% play as altruists, in ultimatum games, 65% play as altruists), therefore they reject fairness hypothesis”. o But the extent to which an individual will engage in altruistic behaviour depends on its opportunity cost. The cost of unfair behaviour for the Proposer is not the same in the two games, because the offer can be rejected in the ultimatum game. In the dictator game, there is no risk of rejection

Dictator game in which the dictator is asked to determine the division of 10 euros: 1. Double-anonymous dictator game (Hoffman)
2. Anonymous partner is replaced by a charity
Results:

1. 30 of the 48 subjects chose to keep the 10 euros (62%), therefore offering 0. The 48 subjects donated a total of 51 euros (10.6% of payoffs).

2. These subjects donated 31% (149) of the payoffs. Only 27% kept the 10 euros for themselves. Five subjects donated the full 10 euros; none in the anonymous treatment did.

What can we conclude from this result:
Altruistic behaviour increases when the recipient is a charity as opposed to an unknown person.

Altruistic behaviour increases when the recipient is a charity as opposed to an unknown person.

According to the findings of Eckel and Grossman, is behaviour as found in laboratory experiments consistent with the prediction of standard game theory? If not, how do Eckel and Grossman explain the difference?

Since the Recipient is powerless, the Nash equilibrium in a DG is for the Proposer to keep the entire pie for himself. This is not was is found in laboratory experiments. The only reason to give to an anonymous receiver is self-esteem (or ‘warm glow’, p. 183).  Though two articles (which are mentioned on pp. 183-184) do think otherwise, according to Eckel and Grossman generosity is (at least partly) the cause of altruism (‘other regarding behaviour’).

Why is a non-zero offer in a Dictator Game not always an indication of a concern for fairness by the donor?

There could be an experimenter effect (in that case the Proposer is concerned about what others think about her). In the experiment design, the experimenters try to avoid this effect by using envelopes with (partly or totally) blank slips of paper such that the experimenter won’t be able to deduce from the size of the envelope how much money is in it (p.186)

Is the Ultimatum  Game, as described on page 185 of the article, a game with complete or with incomplete information? e

Incomplete since the proposer does not know whether the receiver is an altruist or not

Why do Eckel and Grossman replace the anonymous receiver by a ‘deserving’ charity in the Dictator Game? Does this change the findings of the experiment?

Fairness requires a context. Anonymous giving to an unknown donor doesn’t really make sense (except from warm glow). From Table 1, it can be seen that introducing a charity indeed increases giving in a DG. This indicates that fairness plays a role.

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

  • A unique study and practice tool
  • Never study anything twice again
  • Get the grades you hope for
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Remember faster, study better. Scientifically proven.
Trustpilot Logo