The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games: Comment
Abstract
A surprisingly large amount of otherregarding behavior is the common finding of experiments on bargaining, public goods, and trust. Elizabeth Hoffman et al. ( hereafter, HMS ) ( 1996 ) have provided an insightful analysis of why experimental results deviate from game theoretic predictions in dictator games. The authors conclude that individuals’ dispositional knowledge about social norms and reciprocity is activated by decreasing social distance even though the dictator game explicitly excludes reciprocal sanctioning possibilities by experimental design. We challenge this conclusion. While HMS (p. 654) define social distance to be ‘‘the degree of reciprocity that subjects believe exist within a social interaction,’’ we argue that social distance influences otherregardedness independent of any norms of social exchange. When social distance decreases, the ‘‘other’’ is no longer some unknown individual from some anonymous crowd but becomes an ‘‘identifiable victim’’ (Thomas C. Schelling 1968). In order to discriminate between reciprocity-based and identifiabilitybased other-regardedness, we also used the dictator game and varied the degree of social distance. An anonymous treatment is com-
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
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 by
Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism.
Andreoni, J., & Vesterlund, L. (2001) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355301556419 · Cited by 1,427
Trust and reputation in the sharing economy: The role of personal photos in Airbnb
Ert, E., Fleischer, A., & Magen, N. (2016) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2016.01.013 · Cited by 1,295
The social distance theory of power
Magee, J. C., & Smith, P. K. (2013) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868312472732 · Cited by 620
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2005) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00426.x · Cited by 588
Ketelaar, T., & Tung Au, W. (2003) · Cognition and Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699930143000662 · Cited by 482
Measuring Social Norms and Preferences Using Experimental Games: A Guide for Social Scientists
Camerer, C. F., & Fehr, E. (2004) · Foundations of Human Sociality · doi:10.1093/0199262055.003.0003 · Cited by 465
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2012) · Hormones and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2011.12.009 · Cited by 455
More order with less law: On contract enforcement, trust and crowding
Bohnet, I., Frey, B. S., & Huck, S. (2001) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055401000211 · Cited by 391
Self-citationAlfano, M. (2013) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139208536 · Cited by 356
To buy or not to buy: Influence of seller photos and reputation on buyer trust and purchase behavior
Bente, G., Baptist, O., & Leuschner, H. (2012) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.08.005 · Cited by 150
Empathy, gender, and prosocial behavior
Kamas, L., & Preston, A. (2021) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2020.101654 · Cited by 139
Cohn, A., Gesche, T., & Maréchal, M. A. (2022) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2021.3985 · Cited by 62
Understanding resource sharing in C2C platforms: The role of picture humanization
Teubner, T., Adam, M. T. P., Camacho, S., & Hassanein, K. (2014) · Unpublished · doi:10.13140/2.1.3578.0167 · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. S.
- Venue
- American Economic Review
- Publisher
- American Economic Association
- Published
- 1999-03-01
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 335-339
- ISSN
- 0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2013310165
- Cited by
- 504
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 31.51
- 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.