The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact?
Abstract
Experimental dictator games have been used to explore unselfish behaviour. Evidence is presented here, however, that subjects’ generosity can be reversed by allowing them to take a partner's money. Dictator game giving therefore does not reveal concern for consequences to others existing independently of the environment, as posited in rational choice theory. It may instead be an artefact of experimentation. Alternatively, evaluations of options depend on the composition of the choice set. Implications of these possibilities are explored for experimental methodology and charitable donations respectively. The data favour the artefact interpretation, suggesting that demand characteristics of experimental protocols merit investigation, and that economic analysis should not exclude context-specific social norms.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Orne, M. T. (1962) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0043424 · Cited by 4,041
Understanding Social Preferences with Simple Tests
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355302760193904 · Cited by 3,970
Elements of psychophysics, 1860.
Fechner, G. T. (1948) · Readings in the history of psychology. · doi:10.1037/11304-026 · Cited by 1,307
Altruism in Anonymous Dictator Games.
Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. J. (1996) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1006/game.1996.0081 · Cited by 1,126 · cited 1×
“See, for examples, Eckel and Grossman (1996) on anonymity and charities versus individuals as recipients, Hoffman et al. (1996) and Bohnet and Frey (1999) on social distance, Cherry et al. (2002) on earned versus unearned income, and Haley and Fessler (2005) on visual suggestions of observation.”
BackgroundThe Hawthorne effect: A reconsideration of the methodological artifact.
Adair, J. G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.334 · Cited by 1,095 · cited 1×
“One explanation of the present results is that dictator game giving is a “Hawthorne” effect (Roethlisberger and Dickson 1939; Adair 1984; Jones 1992), that is, an artefact of behavioural experimentation.”
ResultOn the Interpretation of Giving in Dictator Games
List, J. A. (2007) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/519249 · Cited by 918
Cited by
Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments
Zizzo, D. J. (2010) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-009-9230-z · Cited by 1,194
Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis.
Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000217 · Cited by 689
A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice
Baumard, N., André, J.-B., & Sperber, D. (2013) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x11002202 · Cited by 668
Personality Psychology and Economics
Almlund, M., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J., & Kautz, T. (2011) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w16822 · Cited by 540
Moshagen, M., Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2018) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000111 · Cited by 519
Metadata
- Authors
- Bardsley, N.
- Venue
- Experimental Economics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 122-133
- ISSN
- 1386-4157 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6938
- OpenAlex
- W2169335427
- Cited by
- 627
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 49.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s10683-007-9172-2
- The paper
- Bardsley, N. (2008). Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact? Experimental Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-007-9172-2
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
