Dictator Game

Background

The Dictator Game is a socio-economic game about the allocation of monetary resources to study prosocial behavior. In the Dictator Game participants get the choice to allocate money in either a more prosocial or more egotistical manners without having to fear immediate repercussions from their recipients. For example, one player is given $10. They can then choose how much, if any, to share with another player who can only accept whatever decision is made.

The game is often compared to the Ultimatum Game, where the recipient can reject an unfair offer, leading to zero payoffs for both. By removing this threat, the Dictator Game isolates altruism from strategic "fairness".

Daniel Kahneman and colleagues created the game in 1986 to test if people would follow the "rational" economic model of selfishness. They found that most people chose to share more than predicted, challenging standard economic assumptions. Additional research found that sharing resources also depends in part on one's anonymity (the more anonymous, the less sharing), the source of the resource (earned vs. gifted; with less sharing of money that was worked for) and other factors, e.g. the perceived 'worthiness' of the recipient.

The Millisecond Dictator Game is based on the published design by Sean Brocklebank and colleagues from 2011. The game is played in six rounds with carefully selected hypothetical allocation scenarios, e.g. pinning an equal allocation of money against one that favors another person even if the choice results in the same outcome for oneself or pinning an equal money allocation against one that favors another person even if that choice would also result in a better outcome for oneself.

Task Procedure

Instructions tell each participant that they play in a group of people and that they are anonymously paired with another person from the group for several game rounds, but that this co-player may not be same the person each time. Each participant is further told that players would be assigned one of two roles (Role A or Role B, the roles are never further explained) at the start of each round. In the Dictator Game, participants play six games and each time they are assigned 'Role B'. As the Role B player, the participant is asked to make a binary decision about how to divide (hypothetical) monetary resources between one's own account and that of the other player. Player A (which in all cases is just the computer) gets no say in this decision. The choice is always between a more prosocial allocation (favoring Player A, if any) or one that is favoring oneself, if any. Three of the games pin an equal allocation outcome against a favorable outcome for Player A. Three of the games pin an equal allocation against a favorable one for oneself. If a participant were to choose consistently the dedicated 'prosocial' option, Player A would end up with about $1300 more (hypothetical) money than the participant. By choosing consistently the non-social option, the participant would end up with about $1300 more (hypothetical) money than Player A.

What it Measures

The Dictator Game is a measure of prosocial behavior.

Psychological domains

• Motivation: The internal process that initiates, guides, and maintains goal-oriented behaviors
• Altruism: Thoughts and actions that help someone else even at a risk or cost to oneself
• Social Norms: The unwritten, informal rules that define what is considered acceptable within a specific group

Main Performance Metrics

• Number of Prosocial Selections: Number of times the 'prosocial/altruistic' option was selected
• Money Player A/Money Player B: The monetary outcomes for both players as well as the final difference in monetary outcomes

Psychiatric Conditions

The following patient groups tend to lower or higher prosocial behavior in the Dictator Game

• Schizophrenia
• Major Depressive Disorder
• Ventro-Medial Prefrontal Cortex (vmPFC) Damage
• Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
• Psychopathy

References

Search Google Scholar for peer-reviewed, published research using the Inquisit Dictator Game.

---

Cason, T. N., & Mui, V.-L. (September 01, 1997). A Laboratory Study in Group Polarisation in the Team Dictator Game. The Economic Journal, 107, 444.)

Saad, G., & Gill, T. (July 01, 2001). The effects of a recipient's gender in a modified dictator game. Applied Economics Letters, 8, 7, 463-466.

Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117, 817–869.

Ben-Ner, A., Putterman, L., Kong, F., & Magan, D. (March 01, 2004). Reciprocity in a two-part dictator game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 53, 3.)

Benenson, J. F., Pascoe, J., & Radmore, N. (January 01, 2007). Children's altruistic behavior in the dictator game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 3, 168.

Brocklebank, S., Lewis, G.J, & Bates, T.C. (2011). Personality accounts for stable preferences and expectations across a range of simple games. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 881-886.

Wu, Y., Leliveld, M. C., & Zhou, X. (December 01, 2011). Social distance modulates recipient's fairness consideration in the dictator game: An ERP study. Biological Psychology, 88, 253-262.