Taking, giving, and impure altruism in dictator games

Korenok, Oleg; Millner, Edward L.; Razzolini, Laura

doi:10.1007/s10683-013-9379-3

Cited by 63 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results showed that less cupcakes were taken than given, which is in agreement with the results reported in the study of Korenok et al (2014), carried out in a specific distribution context. Since in the present study there was a situation involving the production of goods, it was considered that when the participants were in the position of giving the resources they felt more like the owners of the cupcakes than when they were asked to take the cupcakes, making it easier to transfer ownership of the cupcakes to the other character.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…The distribution of resources based on taking something for themselves or giving something to others can result in different distributed amounts (Korenok, Millner, & Razzolini, 2014), as shown in the results of this study. However, investigating a real situation of donation to a charity, Grossman and Eckel (2015) found no difference between these two types of distribution.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Distributive judgments in cooperative production contexts

Cabral

Sampaio

Roazzi

2018

Estud. psicol. (Campinas)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of the present study was to investigate distributive judgments in hypothetical situations involving productive activities. The participants should divide produced cupcakes between two story characters. One of the characters was the participant him/herself. Three factors were analyzed: (1) mode of production: cooperative with the help of one person or alone using someone else’s means of production; (2) purpose of production: sale or picnic; and (3) participants’ perspective: give the cupcakes to or take from the other character. Their confidence on each judgment and how easily they made their judgments were other aspects analyzed. The sample consisted of 156 university students. The results showed that the three factors influenced the participants’ distributive judgment, and mode of production had the most significant influence. These results were discussed based on recent research on cooperative behavior and cognitive mechanisms that affect the decision-making process in situations involving distributive justice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 52%

Distributive judgments in cooperative production contexts

Cabral

Sampaio

Roazzi

2018

Estud. psicol. (Campinas)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, in consequence of our results one can alternatively use a giving or a taking frame in various research questions without changing the decision space—so long as the investigation is not focused on gender or the issue of taking/giving price, or the choice of the game (Korenok, Millner, and Razzolini , 2016) is absent.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Differences in the Giving and Taking Variants of the Dictator Game

Chowdhury¹,

Jeon²,

Saha³

2017

Southern Economic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We run between-subject dictator games with exogenously specified “give” or “take” frames involving a balanced pool of male and female dictators and constant payoff possibilities. We find the following: Females allocate more under the taking frame than under the giving frame. Males allocate more under the giving frame than under the taking frame. In the taking frame females are more generous than males. But in the giving frame both are equally generous. Finally, when the combined population of males and females is considered, giving is found to be equivalent to “not taking,” because the opposing gender effects offset each other

show abstract

“…The PG20 is the counterpart within the Patron Game framework of the GIVE* in [28]. 12 Reference [32] acknowledge that not giving is intrinsically different than taking and that the results in [21] cannot be rationalized by an impure altruism model.…”

Section: Warm Glow Of Giving (Impure Altruism)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Patron Game: the Individual Provision of a Public Good

Filippin

Raimondi

2018

Games

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The Patron Game studies the individual provision of a public good, i.e., a situation in which the cost of contributing exceeds by construction its private return (e.g., volunteering, Open Collaboration projects). We test the Patron Game in the lab finding that contributions are high, though significantly lower than in a classic Public Good Game. Results show that demand effects and the warm glow of giving account almost entirely for the contributions, with the former playing the most prominent role. The social nature of the individual provision of a public good is confirmed by the fact that, even when the efficiency multiplier is removed, contributions are higher than in comparable Dictator Games.

show abstract

Taking, giving, and impure altruism in dictator games

Cited by 63 publications

References 14 publications

Distributive judgments in cooperative production contexts

Distributive judgments in cooperative production contexts

Gender Differences in the Giving and Taking Variants of the Dictator Game

The Patron Game: the Individual Provision of a Public Good

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About