Submission 117
Paying £1 or nothing in dictator games: Unexpected differences
PS6-G08-01
Presented by: Diego Jorrat
We conducted an online Dictator Game experiment in which 1,195 participants decided how to split £1 with another participant (63% female, average age
32.2). The goal was to examine whether using real but low stakes, as is standard in online samples, vs. hypothetical money leads to differential outcomes.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: those being paid for real, those with a 1/10 probability of being paid, and those not paid at all
(hypothetical condition). We find no significant differences in average giving across treatments. Unexpectedly, donation is less dispersed in the hypothetical
treatment, since participants’ choices tend to concentrate more around the egalitarian distribution. Finally, the likelihood of making purely selfish decisions does not differ across treatments, whereas hyper-generous choices are more common in monetary schemes than in the hypothetical one. All these findings go in general against expectations.
32.2). The goal was to examine whether using real but low stakes, as is standard in online samples, vs. hypothetical money leads to differential outcomes.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: those being paid for real, those with a 1/10 probability of being paid, and those not paid at all
(hypothetical condition). We find no significant differences in average giving across treatments. Unexpectedly, donation is less dispersed in the hypothetical
treatment, since participants’ choices tend to concentrate more around the egalitarian distribution. Finally, the likelihood of making purely selfish decisions does not differ across treatments, whereas hyper-generous choices are more common in monetary schemes than in the hypothetical one. All these findings go in general against expectations.