IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pie/dsedps/2021-277.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Delaying and Motivating Decisions in the (Bully) Dictator Game

Author

Listed:
  • Ennio Bilancini
  • Leonardo Boncinelli
  • Pietro Guarnieri
  • Lorenzo Spadoni

Abstract

We investigate experimentally how decisions in the Dictator Game are affected by cognitive manipulations aimed at promoting greater reliance on deliberation. Specifically, we run an online experiment where we have 6 distinct experimental conditions resulting from the combination of 2 conditions for the Dictator Game (non-bully: the dictator is initially endowed with all the money; bully: the initial endowment is equally split), and 3 conditions for the cognitive manipulations (time delay: decisions are delayed; motivated delay: decisions are delayed and a written motivation is required; control: no manipulation). We find that the equal initial endowment leads the dictator to keep less for himself, confirming in the online setting previous evidence from the lab. Further, our findings suggest that the request to write a motivation makes subjects take less for themselves with respect to the mere request to wait some time before choosing.

Suggested Citation

  • Ennio Bilancini & Leonardo Boncinelli & Pietro Guarnieri & Lorenzo Spadoni, 2021. "Delaying and Motivating Decisions in the (Bully) Dictator Game," Discussion Papers 2021/277, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    • Handle: RePEc:pie:dsedps:2021/277
    Note: ISSN 2039-1854
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ec.unipi.it/documents/Ricerca/papers/2021-277.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mariana Blanco & Dirk Engelmann & Alexander Koch & Hans-Theo Normann, 2010. "Belief elicitation in experiments: is there a hedging problem?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(4), pages 412-438, December.
    2. Bicchieri, Cristina & Erte, Xiao, 2007. "Do the right thing: But only if others do so," MPRA Paper 4609, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Yi Yang Teoh & Ziqing Yao & William A. Cunningham & Cendri A. Hutcherson, 2020. "Attentional priorities drive effects of time pressure on altruistic choice," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Amanda Kvarven & Eirik Strømland & Conny Wollbrant & David Andersson & Magnus Johannesson & Gustav Tinghög & Daniel Västfjäll & Kristian Ove R. Myrseth, 2020. "The intuitive cooperation hypothesis revisited: a meta-analytic examination of effect size and between-study heterogeneity," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 26-42, June.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:771-781 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Erin L. Krupka & Roberto A. Weber, 2013. "Identifying Social Norms Using Coordination Games: Why Does Dictator Game Sharing Vary?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 495-524, June.
    7. Peter Dolton & Richard S.J. Tol, 2019. "Correlates of Social Value Orientation: Evidence from a Large Sample of the UK Population," Working Paper Series 0119, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    8. Gustav Tinghög & David Andersson & Caroline Bonn & Magnus Johannesson & Michael Kirchler & Lina Koppel & Daniel Västfjäll, 2016. "Intuition and Moral Decision-Making – The Effect of Time Pressure and Cognitive Load on Moral Judgment and Altruistic Behavior," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-19, October.
    9. Igor Grossmann & Justin P. Brienza & D. Ramona Bobocel, 2017. "Wise deliberation sustains cooperation," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(3), pages 1-6, March.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:2:p:566-595 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Fadong Chen & Ian Krajbich, 2018. "Biased sequential sampling underlies the effects of time pressure and delay in social decision making," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    12. Crosetto, Paolo & Güth, Werner, 2021. "What are you calling intuitive? Subject heterogeneity as a driver of response times in an impunity game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    13. Ennio Bilancini & Leonardo Boncinelli & Lorenzo Spadoni, 2020. "Motivating Risky Choices Increases Risk Taking," Working Papers CESARE 1/2020, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    14. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    15. 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.
    16. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    17. Andersen, Steffen & Gneezy, Uri & Kajackaite, Agne & Marx, Julie, 2018. "Allowing for reflection time does not change behavior in dictator and cheating games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 24-33.
    18. Gilles Grolleau & Angela Sutan & Sana El Harbi & Marwa Jedidi, 2018. "Do We Need More Time To Give Less? Experimental Evidence From Tunisia," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(4), pages 400-409, October.
    19. Amanda Chuan & Judd B. Kessler & Katherine L. Milkman, 2018. "Field study of charitable giving reveals that reciprocity decays over time," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 115(8), pages 1766-1771, February.
    20. Schulz, Jonathan F. & Fischbacher, Urs & Thöni, Christian & Utikal, Verena, 2014. "Affect and fairness: Dictator games under cognitive load," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 77-87.
    21. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    22. Anna Louisa Merkel & Johannes Lohse, 2019. "Is fairness intuitive? An experiment accounting for subjective utility differences under time pressure," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(1), pages 24-50, March.
    23. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Garagnani, Michele, 2020. "The cognitive foundations of cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 71-85.
    24. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Ritschel, Alexander & García-Segarra, Jaume & Achtziger, Anja, 2019. "Habituation does not rescue depletion: Two tests of the ego-depletion effect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PA).
    25. Deck, Cary & Jahedi, Salar, 2015. "The effect of cognitive load on economic decision making: A survey and new experiments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 97-119.
    26. Anja Achtziger & Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Alexander Ritschel, 2020. "Cognitive load in economic decisions," ECON - Working Papers 354, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hanna Fromell & Daniele Nosenzo & Trudy Owens, 2020. "Altruism, fast and slow? Evidence from a meta-analysis and a new experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(4), pages 979-1001, December.
    2. Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo & Celadin, Tatiana, 2022. "Social value orientation and conditional cooperation in the online one-shot public goods game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 243-272.
    3. Clark H. Warner & Marion Fortin & Tessa Melkonian, 2024. "When Are We More Ethical? A Review and Categorization of the Factors Influencing Dual-Process Ethical Decision-Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 189(4), pages 843-882, February.
    4. Ennio Bilancini & Leonardo Boncinelli & Lorenzo Spadoni, 2020. "Motivating Risky Choices Increases Risk Taking," Working Papers CESARE 1/2020, Dipartimento di Economia e Finanza, LUISS Guido Carli.
    5. Ahrens, Steffen & Bosch-Rosa, Ciril, 2023. "Motivated beliefs, social preferences, and limited liability in financial decision-Making," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    6. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos & Garagnani, Michele, 2020. "The cognitive foundations of cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 71-85.
    7. Erik O. Kimbrough & Alexander Vostroknutov, 2016. "Norms Make Preferences Social," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 608-638, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Anna Dreber & Tore Ellingsen & Magnus Johannesson & David Rand, 2013. "Do people care about social context? Framing effects in dictator games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 349-371, September.
    10. Marco Catola & Simone D'Alessandro & Pietro Guarnieri & Veronica Pizziol, 2021. "Personal norms in the online public good game," Discussion Papers 2021/276, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    11. Crosetto, Paolo & Güth, Werner, 2021. "What are you calling intuitive? Subject heterogeneity as a driver of response times in an impunity game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    12. Strømland, Eirik & Torsvik, Gaute, 2019. "Intuitive Prosociality: Heterogeneous Treatment Effects or False Positive?," OSF Preprints hrx2y, Center for Open Science.
    13. Marco Catola & Simone D'Alessandro & Pietro Guarnieri & Veronica Pizziol, 2021. "Personal and social norms in a multilevel public goods experiment," Discussion Papers 2021/272, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    14. Fadong Chen & Urs Fischbacher, 2020. "Cognitive processes underlying distributional preferences: a response time study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 421-446, June.
    15. Florian Baumann & Tim Friehe & Pascal Langenbach, 2020. "Fines versus Damages: Experimental Evidence on Care Investments," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2020_08, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, revised Mar 2024.
    16. Liqi Zhu & Gerd Gigerenzer & Gang Huangfu, 2013. "Psychological Traces of China's Socio-Economic Reforms in the Ultimatum and Dictator Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-6, August.
    17. Björn Bartling & Vanessa Valero & Roberto A. Weber, 2018. "Is Social Responsibility a Normal Good?," CESifo Working Paper Series 7263, CESifo.
    18. McBride, Michael & Ridinger, Garret, 2021. "Beliefs also make social-norm preferences social," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 765-784.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:2:p:191-197 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. 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.
    21. Anna Dreber & Drew Fudenberg & David K Levine & David G Rand, 2014. "Altruism and Self Control," Levine's Working Paper Archive 786969000000000962, David K. Levine.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    dual process; motivation; deliberation; intuition; Dictator Game; bully; social norms;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pie:dsedps:2021/277. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dspisit.html .

    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.