Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T13:09:09.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Altruistic behavior in a representative dictator experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Jeffrey Carpenter ,
Cristina Connolly  and
Caitlin Knowles Myers
Jeffrey Carpenter*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Middlebury College, 601 Warner, Middlebury, VT 05753, USA
Cristina Connolly*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Middlebury College, 601 Warner, Middlebury, VT 05753, USA
Caitlin Knowles Myers*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Middlebury College, 502E Warner, Middlebury, VT 05753, USA
*
e-mail: jpc@middlebury.edu
e-mail: caconnol@middlebury.edu
e-mail: cmyers@middlebury.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We conduct a representative dictator game in which students and random members of the community choose both what charity to support and how much to donate to the charity. We find systematic differences between the choices of students and community members. Community members are much more likely to write in their own charity, community members donate significantly more ($17), on average, and community members are much more likely (32%) to donate the entire $100 endowment. Based on this evidence, it does not appear that student behavior is very representative in the context of the charitable donations and the dictator game.

Keywords

AltruismDictator gameField experimentRepresentativeness

JEL classification

D64: Altruism • Philanthropy • Intergenerational Transfers C93: Field Experiments C72: Noncooperative Games

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 11 , Issue 3: Field experiments in economics with applications to the economics of charity , September 2008 , pp. 282 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10683-007-9193-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References

Ai, C., & Norton, E. (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters, 80, 123–129.10.1016/S0165-1765(03)00032-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barchard, K. (2004). The nature and measurement of emotional intelligence abilities: basic dimensions and their relationships with other cognitive ability and personality variables. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 437–462.10.1177/0013164403261762CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardsley, N. (2008). Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact? Experimental Economics. doi:10.1007/s10683-007-9172-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellemare, C., & Kroger, S. (2005). On representative social capital. CIRPEE Working Paper 05–04.Google Scholar
Benz, M., & Meier, S. (2005). Do people behave in experiments as in real life? Evidence from donations. University of Zurich, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics Working Paper No. 248.Google Scholar
Botelho, A., Harrison, G., Hirsch, M., & Rutstrom, E. (2005). Bargaining behavior, demographics and nationality: what can the experimental evidence show? In Carpenter, J., Harrison, G., & List, J. (Eds.), Field experiments in economics. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520350519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burks, S., Carpenter, J., & Goette, L. (2005). Performance pay and the erosion of worker cooperation: field experimental evidence. Middlebury College Department of Economics Working Paper.Google Scholar
Burns, P. (1985). Experience and decision making: a comparison of students and businessmen in a simulated progressive auction. In Smith, V. (Ed.), Research in experimental economics. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: experiments on strategic interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Camerer, C., & Thaler, R. (1995). Anomalies: ultimatums, dictators and manners. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 209–219.10.1257/jep.9.2.209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardenas, J. C. (2003). Bringing the lab to the field: more than changing subjects. Javeriana University Department of Economics Working Paper.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J., Burks, S., & Verhoogen, E. (2005a). Comparing students to workers: the effects of social framing on behavior in distribution games. In Carpenter, J., Harrison, G., & List, J. (Eds.), Field experiments in economics. Research in experimental economics. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, J., Verhoogen, E., & Burks, S. (2005b). The effect of stakes in distribution experiments. Economics Letters, 86, 393–398.10.1016/j.econlet.2004.08.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five- Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Wagner, G., Sunde, U., & Schupp, J. (2005). Individual risk attitudes: new evidence from a large, representative, experimentally-validated survey. IZA discussion paper no. 1730.10.2139/ssrn.807408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C., & Grossman, P. (1996). Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behavior, 16, 181–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E., Fischbacher, U., Rosenbladt, B., Schupp, J., & Wagner, G. (2003). A nation-wide laboratory examining trust and trustworthiness by integrating behavioral experiments into representative surveys. University of Zurich, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics Working Paper #141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fong, C. (2005). Empathic responsiveness: evidence from a randomized experiment on giving to welfare recipients. Carnegie Mellon Department of Social and Decision Sciences Working Paper.Google Scholar
Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gueth, W., Schmidt, C., & Sutter, M. (2007). Bargaining outside the lab: a newspaper experiment of a three-person ultimatum game. The Economic Journal, 117, 449–469.10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02025.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G., & List, J. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 1009–1055.10.1257/0022051043004577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, C., et al. (2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312, 1767–1770.10.1126/science.1127333CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogarth, R. (2005). The challenge of representative design in psychology and economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 12, 253–263.10.1080/13501780500086172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, S., & List, J. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J. (2004). Young, selfish and male: field evidence of social preferences. The Economic Journal, 114, 121–149.10.1046/j.0013-0133.2003.00180.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J. (2006). Field experiments: a bridge between lab and naturally occurring data. Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy, 6, Article 8.Google Scholar
List, J. (2007). On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. Journal of Political Economy, 115, 482493.10.1086/519249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Carpenter et al. supplementary material

Carpenter et al. supplementary material
Download Carpenter et al. supplementary material(File)
File 283 KB