IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v198y2022icp280-301.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender and other moderators of giving in the dictator game: A meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Doñate-Buendía, Anabel
  • García-Gallego, Aurora
  • Petrović, Marko

Abstract

Meta-analysis techniques are used to analyse behaviour in a set of 136 experimental dictator game conditions. The aim is to find the motivating factors of dictators’ generosity under diverse experimental treatments. For that purpose, a specific meta-analysis is performed on gender differences in giving decisions. It is found that gender differences exist, being women on average significantly more generous than men, even if controlling for several moderator variables that are included in the study. The gender effect may change over several experimental conditions and locations. On the one hand, women are more generous than men for moderate and large social distance, while they are less generous than men when playing with close friends or family members. On the other hand, women give more than men in South America, North America and Oceania, while they give less than men in South Africa. The location seems to play an important role in the overall dictators' behaviour. A general result is that, compared to the baseline, women change their behaviour significantly more than men when they are exposed to any experimental condition.

Suggested Citation

  • Doñate-Buendía, Anabel & García-Gallego, Aurora & Petrović, Marko, 2022. "Gender and other moderators of giving in the dictator game: A meta-analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 280-301.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:198:y:2022:i:c:p:280-301
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2022.03.031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268122001263
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.03.031?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karl Schurter & Bart J. Wilson, 2009. "Justice and Fairness in the Dictator Game," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(1), pages 130-145, July.
    2. Boschini, Anne & Muren, Astri & Persson, Mats, 2012. "Constructing gender differences in the economics lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 741-752.
    3. Karl Schurter & Bart J. Wilson, 2009. "Justice and Fairness in the Dictator Game," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(1), pages 130-145, July.
    4. Eckel, Catherine C & Grossman, Philip J, 1998. "Are Women Less Selfish Than Men? Evidence from Dictator Experiments," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(448), pages 726-735, May.
    5. James Andreoni & Lise Vesterlund, 2001. "Which is the Fair Sex? Gender Differences in Altruism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 293-312.
    6. Rene Bekkers, 2007. "Measuring altruistic behavior in surveys: The all-or-nothing dictator game," Artefactual Field Experiments 00102, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. David Reinstein & Gerhard Riener, 2012. "Decomposing desert and tangibility effects in a charitable giving experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 229-240, March.
    8. Juan Camilo Cardenas & Jeffrey Carpenter, 2008. "Behavioural Development Economics: Lessons from Field Labs in the Developing World," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(3), pages 311-338.
    9. Ananish Chaudhuri & Lata Gangadharan, 2007. "An Experimental Analysis of Trust and Trustworthiness," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(4), pages 959-985, April.
    10. Forsythe Robert & Horowitz Joel L. & Savin N. E. & Sefton Martin, 1994. "Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 347-369, May.
    11. Swope, Kurtis J. & Cadigan, John & Schmitt, Pamela M. & Shupp, Robert, 2008. "Personality preferences in laboratory economics experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 998-1009, June.
    12. Ismael Rodriguez-Lara & Luis Moreno-Garrido, 2012. "Self-interest and fairness: self-serving choices of justice principles," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(1), pages 158-175, March.
    13. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    14. List, John A. & Samak, Anya C., 2013. "Exploring the origins of charitable acts: Evidence from an artefactual field experiment with young children," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(3), pages 431-434.
    15. Takehiro Ito & Kazuhito Ogawa & Akihiro Suzuki & Hiromasa Takahashi & Toru Takemoto, 2016. "Contagion of Self-Interested Behavior: Evidence from Group Dictator Game Experiments," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 17(4), pages 425-437, November.
    16. David Reinstein & Gerhard Riener, 2012. "Reputation and influence in charitable giving: an experiment," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 72(2), pages 221-243, February.
    17. Nichola J Raihani & Ruth Mace & Shakti Lamba, 2013. "The Effect of $1, $5 and $10 Stakes in an Online Dictator Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-1, August.
    18. Rousu, Matthew C. & Baublitz, Sara J., 2011. "Does perceived unfairness affect charitable giving? Evidence from the dictator game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 364-367, August.
    19. Abhijit Ramalingam, 2012. "The relevance of irrelevant information in the dictator game," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 32(1), pages 746-754.
    20. Matthew K. Gnagey & Therese C. Grijalva & Rong Rong, 2018. "Spousal Dictator Game: Household Decisions and Other-Regarding Preferences," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-11, September.
    21. Lisa Bruttel & Florian Stolley, 2018. "Gender Differences in the Response to Decision Power and Responsibility—Framing Effects in a Dictator Game," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-16, May.
    22. Julie Novakova & Jaroslav Flegr, 2013. "How Much Is Our Fairness Worth? The Effect of Raising Stakes on Offers by Proposers and Minimum Acceptable Offers in Dictator and Ultimatum Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-9, April.
    23. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:6:p:527-536 is not listed on IDEAS
    24. Christina M. Fong & Erzo F. P. Luttmer, 2009. "What Determines Giving to Hurricane Katrina Victims? Experimental Evidence on Racial Group Loyalty," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 64-87, April.
    25. Houser, Daniel & Schunk, Daniel, 2009. "Social environments with competitive pressure: Gender effects in the decisions of German schoolchildren," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 634-641, August.
    26. Sam Whitt & Rick K. Wilson, 2007. "The Dictator Game, Fairness and Ethnicity in Postwar Bosnia," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(3), pages 655-668, July.
    27. David Klinowski, 2018. "Gender differences in giving in the Dictator Game: the role of reluctant altruism," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(2), pages 110-122, December.
    28. Ben-Ner, Avner & Kong, Fanmin & Putterman, Louis, 2004. "Share and share alike? Gender-pairing, personality, and cognitive ability as determinants of giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 581-589, October.
    29. C. Cadsby & Maroš Servátka & Fei Song, 2010. "Gender and generosity: does degree of anonymity or group gender composition matter?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(3), pages 299-308, September.
    30. Ogawa, Kazuhito & Takemoto, Toru & Takahashi, Hiromasa & Suzuki, Akihiro, 2012. "Income earning opportunity and work performance affect donating behavior: Evidence from dictator game experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 816-826.
    31. Fredrik Carlsson & Haoran He & Peter Martinsson, 2013. "Easy come, easy go," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(2), pages 190-207, June.
    32. Nichola J Raihani & Katherine McAuliffe, 2014. "Dictator Game Giving: The Importance of Descriptive versus Injunctive Norms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
    33. David Bilén & Anna Dreber & Magnus Johannesson, 2021. "Are women more generous than men? A meta-analysis," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, September.
    34. Dufwenberg, Martin & Muren, Astri, 2006. "Generosity, anonymity, gender," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 42-49, September.
    35. Dana, Jason & Cain, Daylian M. & Dawes, Robyn M., 2006. "What you don't know won't hurt me: Costly (but quiet) exit in dictator games," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 193-201, July.
    36. Ananish Chaudhuri & Lata Gangadharan, 2007. "An Experimental Analysis of Trust and Trustworthiness," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 73(4), pages 959-985, April.
    37. Balafoutas, Loukas & Sutter, Matthias, 2017. "On the nature of guilt aversion: Insights from a new methodology in the dictator game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 9-15.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anastasios Koukoumelis & Maria Vittoria Levati & Chiara Nardi, 2021. "Social and Moral Distance in Risky Settings," Working Papers 13/2021, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    2. Igor Asanov & Maria Mavlikeeva, 2023. "Can group identity explain the gender gap in the recruitment process?," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 95-113, January.
    3. Paul M. Gorny & Petra Nieken & Karoline Ströhlein, 2023. "He, She, They? The Impact of Gendered Language on Economic Behavior," CESifo Working Paper Series 10458, CESifo.
    4. Lange, Andreas & Miniesy, Rania & Nicklisch, Andreas & Rabie, Dina & Bock, Olaf & Ross, Johannes, 2023. "Sharing norms and negotiations across cultures: Experimental interactions within and between Egypt and Germany," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 412-440.
    5. Chew, Soo Hong & Ebstein, Richard P. & Israel, Salomon & Lei, Zhen & Tang, Wei, 2023. "Adam Smith’s error? Gender and country differences in altruistic giving revealed using the Andreoni–Miller dictator game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Umer, Hamza, 2020. "Revisiting generosity in the dictator game: Experimental evidence from Pakistan," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    2. Boschini, Anne & Muren, Astri & Persson, Mats, 2012. "Constructing gender differences in the economics lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 741-752.
    3. Rigdon, Mary & Ishii, Keiko & Watabe, Motoki & Kitayama, Shinobu, 2009. "Minimal social cues in the dictator game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 358-367, June.
    4. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    5. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    6. Muriel Niederle, 2014. "Gender," NBER Working Papers 20788, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Sharma, Smriti, 2015. "Gender and distributional preferences: Experimental evidence from India," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 113-123.
    8. Smriti Sharma, 2015. "Gender and Distributional Preferences: Experimental Evidence from India," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2015-062, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    9. Sharma, Smriti, 2015. "Gender and distributional preferences: Experimental evidence from India," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 113-123.
    10. Livingston, Jeffrey A. & Rasulmukhamedov, Rustam, 2023. "On the Interpretation of Giving in Dictator Games When the Recipient is a Charity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 208(C), pages 275-285.
    11. Dasgupta, Utteeyo & Mani, Subha, 2015. "Only Mine or All Ours: Do Stronger Entitlements Affect Altruistic Choices in the Household," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 363-375.
    12. Gauriot, Romain & Heger, Stephanie A. & Slonim, Robert, 2020. "Altruism or diminishing marginal utility?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 24-48.
    13. Bezu, Sosina & Holden, Stein T., 2015. "Generosity and sharing among villagers: Do women give more?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 103-111.
    14. Thorsten Chmura & Christoph Engel & Markus Englerth, 2013. "Selfishness As a Potential Cause of Crime. A Prison Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2013_05, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    15. Boschini, Anne & Dreber, Anna & von Essen, Emma & Muren, Astri & Ranehill, Eva, 2018. "Gender and altruism in a random sample," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 72-77.
    16. Tam Kiet Vuong & Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2021. "Competing social identities and intergroup discrimination: Evidence from a framed field experiment with high school students in Vietnam," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-27, December.
    17. Walkowitz, Gari, 2017. "On the Validity of Cost-Saving Methods in Dictator-Game Experiments: A Systematic Test," MPRA Paper 83309, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Walkowitz, Gari, 2019. "On the Validity of Probabilistic (and Cost-Saving) Incentives in Dictator Games: A Systematic Test," MPRA Paper 91541, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Bucheli, Marisa & Espinosa, María Paz, 2020. "Altruism and information," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    20. Umer, Hamza & Kurosaki, Takashi & Iwasaki, Ichiro, 2022. "Unearned Endowment and Charity Recipient Lead to Higher Donations: A Meta-Analysis of the Dictator Game Lab Experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Dictator game; Meta-analysis; Gender differences; Generosity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • A13 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Social Values
    • C24 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Truncated and Censored Models; Switching Regression Models; Threshold Regression Models
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:198:y:2022:i:c:p:280-301. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.