The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dictator games: a meta study
Abstract
Over the last 25 years, more than a hundred dictator game experiments have been published. This meta study summarises the evidence. Exploiting the fact that most experiments had to fix parameters they did not intend to test, in multiple regression the meta study is able to assess the effect of single manipulations, controlling for a host of alternative explanatory factors. The resulting rich dataset also provides a testbed for comparing alternative specifications of the statistical model for analysing dictator game data. It shows how Tobit models (assuming that dictators would even want to take money) and hurdle models (assuming that the decision to give a positive amount is separate from the choice of amount, conditional on giving) provide additional insights.
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
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
“Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., McElreath, R., Alvard, M., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., et al. (2005) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x05000142 · Cited by 1,898
Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games.
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. (1994) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1006/game.1994.1056 · Cited by 1,674
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 2×
“ECKEL, CATHERINE C. and PHILIP J. GROSSMAN (1996).”
BackgroundSocial Image and the 50-50 Norm: A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of Audience Effects
(2009) · Econometrica · doi:10.3982/ecta7384 · Cited by 1,081
Harbord, R. M., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2008) · The Stata Journal: Promoting communications on statistics and Stata · doi:10.1177/1536867x0800800403 · Cited by 897
The Power of Reciprocity: Fairness, Reciprocity, and Stakes in Variants of the Dictator Game
Diekmann, A. (2004) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/0022002704265948 · Cited by 211
Cited by
Global Evidence on Economic Preferences*
Falk, A., Becker, A., Dohmen, T., Enke, B., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2018) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjy013 · Cited by 1,724
Spontaneous giving and calculated greed
Rand, D. G., Greene, J. D., & Nowak, M. A. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11467 · Cited by 1,334
Moshagen, M., Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2018) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000111 · Cited by 519
Beyond sacrificial harm: a two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology
Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Earp, B. D., Caviola, L., Faber, N. S., Crockett, M. J., & Savulescu, J. (2018) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000093 · Cited by 434
Little Emperors: Behavioral Impacts of China's One-Child Policy
Cameron, L., Erkal, N., Gangadharan, L., & Meng, X. (2013) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1230221 · Cited by 392
Economic games on the internet: the effect of $1 stakes
Amir, O., Rand, D. G., & Gal, Y. K. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031461 · Cited by 364
A Neurocomputational Model of Altruistic Choice and Its Implications
Hutcherson, C. A., Bushong, B., & Rangel, A. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.06.031 · Cited by 299
High economic inequality leads higher-income individuals to be less generous
Côté, S., House, J., & Willer, R. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1511536112 · Cited by 295
Does Observability Affect Prosociality?
Bradley, A., Lawrence, C., & Ferguson, E. (2018) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2018.0116 · Cited by 122
Uncertainty about the impact of social decisions increases prosocial behaviour
Kappes, A., Nussberger, A.-M., Faber, N. S., Kahane, G., Savulescu, J., & Crockett, M. J. (2018) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0372-x · Cited by 79
Ambiguity and excuse-driven behavior in charitable giving
Garcia, T., Massoni, S., & Villeval, M. C. (2020) · European Economic Review · doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103412 · Cited by 62
Chill-inducing music enhances altruism in humans.
Fukui, H., & Toyoshima, K. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01215 · Cited by 62
White, C. J. M., & Norenzayan, A. (2019) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2019.03.001 · Cited by 54
Solar geoengineering may lead to excessive cooling and high strategic uncertainty
Abatayo, A. L., Bosetti, V., Casari, M., Ghidoni, R., & Tavoni, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1916637117 · Cited by 52
Kin and kinship psychology both influence cooperative coordination in Yasawa, Fiji
McNamara, R. A., & Henrich, J. (2017) · Evolution and Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.09.004 · Cited by 42
Barreiro-Hurle, J., Dessart, F. J., Rommel, J., Czajkowski, M., Espinosa-Goded, M., Rodriguez-Entrena, M., Thomas, F., & Zagorska, K. (2023) · Food Policy · doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102481 · Cited by 37
Hong, M., Liang, D., Lu, T., & Liu, S. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1213089 · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Engel, C.
- Venue
- Experimental Economics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2011-11
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 583-610
- ISSN
- 1386-4157 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6938
- OpenAlex
- W1988840588
- Cited by
- 1,783
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 176.77
- 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
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.
