IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ebl/ecbull/eb-25-00292.html

Uncovering the fairness of AI: exploring focal point, inequality aversion, and altruism in ChatGPT's dictator game decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Eleonore Dodivers

    (GREDEG, Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS)

  • Ismael Rafai

    (Toulouse School of Economics and Toulouse School of Management)

Abstract

This paper investigates Artificial intelligence Large Language Models (AI-LLM) social preferences' in Dictator Games. Brookins and Debacker (2024, Economics Bulletin) previously observed a tendency of ChatGPT-3.5 to give away half its endowment in a standard Dictator Game and interpreted this as an expression of fairness. We replicate their experiment and introduce a multiplicative factor on donations which varies the efficiency of the transfer. Varying transfer efficiency disentangles three donation explanations (inequality aversion, altruism, or focal point). Our results show that ChatGPT-3.5 donations should be interpreted as a focal point rather than the expression of fairness. In contrast, a more advanced version (ChatGPT-4o) made decisions that are better explained by altruistic motives than inequality aversion. Our study highlights the necessity to explore the parameter space, when designing experiments to study AI-LLM preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Eleonore Dodivers & Ismael Rafai, 2025. "Uncovering the fairness of AI: exploring focal point, inequality aversion, and altruism in ChatGPT's dictator game decisions," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 45(4), pages 1818-1825.
    • Handle: RePEc:ebl:ecbull:eb-25-00292
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2025/Volume45/EB-25-V45-I4-P158.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dirk Engelmann & Martin Strobel, 2004. "Inequality Aversion, Efficiency, and Maximin Preferences in Simple Distribution Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 857-869, September.
    2. Philip Brookins & Jason DeBacker, 2024. "Playing games with GPT: What can we learn about a large language model from canonical strategic games?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 44(1), pages 25-37.
    3. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    4. Konow, James, 2010. "Mixed feelings: Theories of and evidence on giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(3-4), pages 279-297, April.
    5. Murphy, Ryan O. & Ackermann, Kurt A. & Handgraaf, Michel J. J., 2011. "Measuring Social Value Orientation," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(8), pages 771-781, December.
    6. Ryan O. Murphy & Kurt A. Ackerman & Michel J. J. Handgraaf, 2011. "Measuring social value orientation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 6(8), pages 771-781, December.
    7. Korenok, Oleg & Millner, Edward L. & Razzolini, Laura, 2012. "Are dictators averse to inequality?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 543-547.
    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. Shenkman, E. & Parshakov, P. & Matkin , N., 2026. "Comparative analysis of large language models and human behavior in the Dictator Game," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 71(2), pages 177-203.

    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. Hedegaard, Morten & Kerschbamer, Rudolf & Müller, Daniel & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2021. "Distributional preferences explain individual behavior across games and time," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 231-255.
    2. Alexia Gaudeul, 2013. "Social preferences under uncertainty," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-024, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    3. Holzmeister, F. & Kerschbamer, R., 2019. "oTree: The Equality Equivalence Test," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 214-222.
    4. Snijder, Luuk L. & Stallen, Mirre & Gross, Jörg, 2024. "Decision-makers self-servingly navigate the equality-efficiency trade-off of free partner choice in social dilemmas among unequals," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    5. Fadong Chen & Urs Fischbacher, 2015. "Cognitive Processes of Distributional Preferences: A Response Time Study," TWI Research Paper Series 101, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    6. Eva Jacob & Herrade Igersheim & Magali Jaoul-Grammare, 2025. "Unconditional basic income and social preferences: some evidence from the lab," Working Papers of BETA 2025-46, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    7. Christoph Engel & Paul A. M. Van Lange, 2021. "Social mindfulness is normative when costs are low, but rapidly declines with increases in costs," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 290-322, March.
    8. Pham, Vinh & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio, 2026. "Bargaining with indivisibilities," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    9. Santiago Sanchez-Pages, 2013. "Two Studies on the Interplay between Social Preferences and Individual Biological Features," Edinburgh School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 218, Edinburgh School of Economics, University of Edinburgh.
    10. Timilsina, Raja R. & Kotani, Koji & Nakagawa, Yoshinori & Saijo, Tatsuyoshi, 2022. "Intragenerational deliberation and intergenerational sustainability dilemma," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    11. Shoham Choshen-Hillel & Ilan Yaniv, 2012. "Social preferences shaped by conflicting motives: When enhancing social welfare creates unfavorable comparisons for the self," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(5), pages 618-627, September.
    12. 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.
    13. Quement, Mark T. Le & Marcin, Isabel, 2020. "Communication and voting in heterogeneous committees: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 449-468.
    14. Susann Fiedler & Dshamilja Marie Hellmann & Angela Rachael Dorrough & Andreas Glöckner, 2018. "Cross-national in-group favoritism in prosocial behavior: Evidence from Latin and North America," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 42-60, January.
    15. Brandts, Jordi & Riedl, Arno, 2020. "Market interaction and efficient cooperation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    16. Mark T. Le Quement & Isabel Marcin, 2016. "Communication and voting in heterogeneous committees: An experimental study," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2016_05, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics, revised Oct 2016.
    17. Shawn A. Rhoads & Lin Gan & Kathryn Berluti & Katherine O’Connell & Jo Cutler & Patricia L. Lockwood & Abigail A. Marsh, 2025. "Neurocomputational basis of learning when choices simultaneously affect both oneself and others," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 16(1), pages 1-16, December.
    18. Abigail Barr & Anna Hochleitner & Silvia Sonderegger, 2023. "Does increasing inequality threaten social stability? Evidence from the lab," Discussion Papers 2023-13, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    19. Emma von Essen & Marieke Huysentruyt & Topi Miettinen, 2019. "Exploration in Teams and the Encouragement Effect: Theory and Evidence," Economics Working Papers 2019-10, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    20. Hofmann, Elisa & Fiagbenu, Michael E. & Özgümüs, Asri & Tahamtan, Amir M. & Regner, Tobias, 2021. "Who is watching me? Disentangling audience and interpersonal closeness effects in a Pay-What-You-Want context," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • D7 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making
    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments

    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:ebl:ecbull:eb-25-00292. 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: John P. Conley (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.