Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T19:03:46.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Dictator Game Experiments to Learn About Charitable Giving

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Edward Cartwright Open the ORCID record for Edward Cartwright [Opens in a new window]  and
Adam Thompson
Edward Cartwright*
Affiliation:
De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK
Adam Thompson*
Affiliation:
Teaching Fellow in Economics, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK
*
Edward.cartwright@dmu.ac.uk
a.thompson7@aston.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The dictator game has become a celebrated workhorse of experimental economics and social psychology. In the standard version of the game an individual is given a sum of money and must choose how to split this money between themselves and some other individual. In a variant of the game the individual must split the money between themselves and a charitable cause. This charity version of the dictator game has now been used in well over fifty studies and has provided critical insight on the motives behind giving. It also provides a simple tool that policy makers and practitioners can use to test the effect of interventions. In this paper we explain the different ways in which charity dictator games can and have been used. We also look at the external validity of charity dictator games and discuss the research questions that can be appropriately studied using them.

Keywords

CharityDictator gameField experimentExternal validity

Information

Type
Research Papers
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2023 , pp. 185 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research 2022

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

Edward Cartwright and Adam Thompson have contributed equally to this work.

Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-022-00490-7.

References

Andreoni, J. (1989). Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy, 97(6), 1447–1458. doi: 10.1086/261662.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(5), 1607–1636. doi: 10.3982/ECTA7384.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J., Rao, J. M., & Trachtman, H. (2017). Avoiding the ask: A field experiment on altruism, empathy, and charitable giving. Journal of Political Economy, 125(3), 625–653. doi: 10.1086/691703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachke, M. E., Alfnes, F., & Wik, M. (2014). Eliciting donor preferences. VOLUNTAS International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(2), 465–486. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9347-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekkers, R. (2007). Measuring Altruistic Behavior in Surveys: The All-or-Nothing Dictator Game. In Survey Research Methods (Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 139–144).Google Scholar
Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1652–1678. doi: 10.1257/aer.96.5.1652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Ner, A., Kramer, A., & Levy, O. (2008). Economic and hypothetical dictator game experiments: Incentive effects at the individual level. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(5), 1775–1784. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2007.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benz, M., & Meier, S. (2008). Do people behave in experiments as in the field? Evidence from donations. Experimental Economics, 11(3), 268–281. doi: 10.1007/s10683-007-9192-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhati, A., & Hansen, R. (2020). A literature review of experimental studies in fundraising. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 3(1).10.30636/jbpa.31.129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. L., Meer, J., & Williams, J. F. (2017). Social distance and quality ratings in charity choice. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 66, 9–15. doi: 10.1016/j.socec.2016.04.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bühren, C., & Kundt, T. C. (2015). Imagine being a nice guy: A note on hypothetical vs. incentivized social preferences. Judgment & Decision Making, 10(2), 185–190. doi: 10.1017/S1930297500003946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F. (2011). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carlsson, F., He, H., & Martinsson, P. (2013). Easy come, easy go. Experimental Economics, 16(2), 190–207. doi: 10.1007/s10683-012-9326-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J., Connolly, C., & Myers, C. K. (2008). Altruistic behavior in a representative dictator experiment. Experimental Economics, 11(3), 282–298. doi: 10.1007/s10683-007-9193-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, J., & Myers, C. K. (2010). Why volunteer? Evidence on the role of altruism, image, and incentives. Journal of Public Economics, 94(11–12), 911–920. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.07.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwright, E. J., & Mirza, Z. (2019). Charitable giving when donors are constrained to give a minimum amount. Oxford Economic Papers.Google Scholar
Cartwright, E. (2018). Behavioral economics. Routledge doi: 10.4324/9781315105079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crumpler, H., & Grossman, P. J. (2008). An experimental test of warm glow giving. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5–6), 1011–1021. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.12.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wit, A., & Bekkers, R. (2017). Government support and charitable donations: A meta-analysis of the crowding-out hypothesis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(2), 301–319.Google Scholar
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1996). Altruism in anonymous dictator games. Games and Economic Behavior, 16(2), 181–191. doi: 10.1006/game.1996.0081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2000). Volunteers and pseudo-volunteers: The effect of recruitment method in dictator experiments. Experimental Economics, 3(2), 107–120. doi: 10.1023/A:1026572918109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2003). Rebate versus matching: Does how we subsidize charitable contributions matter?. Journal of Public Economics, 87(3–4), 681–701. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(01)00094-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (2006). Subsidizing charitable giving with rebates or matching: Further laboratory evidence. Southern Economic Journal, 72, 794–807.Google Scholar
Ekström, M. (2012). Do watching eyes affect charitable giving? Evidence from a field experiment. Experimental Economics, 15(3), 530–546. doi: 10.1007/s10683-011-9312-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics, 14(4), 583–610. doi: 10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Exley, C. L. (2020). Using charity performance metrics as an excuse not to give. Management Science, 66(2), 553–563. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2018.3268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fielding, D., & Knowles, S. (2015). Can you spare some change for charity? Experimental evidence on verbal cues and loose change effects in a Dictator Game. Experimental Economics, 18(4), 718–730. doi: 10.1007/s10683-014-9424-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franzen, A., & Pointner, S. (2013). The external validity of giving in the dictator game. Experimental Economics, 16(2), 155–169. doi: 10.1007/s10683-012-9337-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güth, W., & Tietz, R. (1990). Ultimatum bargaining behavior: A survey and comparison of experimental results. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11(3), 417–449. doi: 10.1016/0167-4870(90)90021-Z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(4), 1009–1055. doi: 10.1257/0022051043004577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmig, B., Spraul, K., & Tremp, K. (2012). Replication studies in nonprofit research: A generalization and extension of findings regarding the media publicity of nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(3), 360–385. doi: 10.1177/0899764011404081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. doi: 10.1006/game.1994.1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., & Smith, V. L. (1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 653–660.Google Scholar
Li, H., Liang, J., Xu, H., & Liu, Y. (2019). Does windfall money encourage charitable giving? An experimental study. Voluntas International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(4), 841–848. doi: 10.1007/s11266-018-9985-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. X., Eckel, C. C., Grossman, P. J., & Brown, T. L. (2011). Giving to government: Voluntary taxation in the lab. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9–10), 1190–1201. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luccasen, A., & Grossman, P. J. (2017). Warm-glow giving: Earned money and the option to take. Economic Inquiry, 55(2), 996–1006. doi: 10.1111/ecin.12417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, D. P. (2013). Putting charity to the test: A case for field experiments on giving time and money in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42(1), 193–202. doi: 10.1177/0899764012449518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinstein, D., & Riener, G. (2012). Decomposing desert and tangibility effects in a charitable giving experiment. Experimental Economics, 15(1), 229–240. doi: 10.1007/s10683-011-9298-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stagnaro, M. N., Arechar, A. A., & Rand, D. G. (2020). Are those who believe in God really more prosocial?. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 10(4), 444–458. doi: 10.1080/2153599X.2019.1695656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoop, J. (2014). From the lab to the field: Envelopes, dictators and manners. Experimental Economics, 17(2), 304–313. doi: 10.1007/s10683-013-9368-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vazire, S., Schiavone, S. R., & Bottesini, J. G. (2020). Credibility beyond replicability: Improving the four validities in psychological science. PsyArXiv https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bu4d3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zizzo, D. J. (2010). Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 13(1), 75–98. doi: 10.1007/s10683-009-9230-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Cartwright and Thompson supplementary material

Cartwright and Thompson supplementary material
Download Cartwright and Thompson supplementary material(File)
File 35.4 KB