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. 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.
    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. 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.
    6. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Alexia Gaudeul, 2013. "Social preferences under uncertainty," Jena Economics Research Papers 2013-024, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    5. Metzger, Laura & Günther, Isabel, 2019. "Making an impact? The relevance of information on aid effectiveness for charitable giving. A laboratory experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 18-33.
    6. Weisel, Ori & Zultan, Ro׳i, 2016. "Social motives in intergroup conflict: Group identity and perceived target of threat," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 122-133.
    7. 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).
    8. Metzger, Laura, 2015. "Making an impact? The importance of aid effectiveness for charitable giving. A laboratory experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 112835, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    9. Holzmeister, F. & Kerschbamer, R., 2019. "oTree: The Equality Equivalence Test," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 214-222.
    10. 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).
    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, 2015. "Cognitive Processes of Distributional Preferences: A Response Time Study," TWI Research Paper Series 101, Thurgauer Wirtschaftsinstitut, Universität Konstanz.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," Post-Print halshs-02409314, HAL.
    16. Judith Kas & David J. Hardisty & Michel J. J. Handgraaf, 2021. "Steady steps versus sudden shifts: Cooperation in (a)symmetric linear and step-level social dilemmas," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(1), pages 142-164, January.
    17. Maxime Perodaud & Michela Chessa, 2026. "Hey, what did you expect ? Confirmation bias in credence goods markets: Theoretical and experimental analyses," Post-Print hal-05441370, HAL.
    18. 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.
    19. Carlos A. de Matos Fernandes & Dieko M. Bakker & Jacob Dijkstra, 2022. "Assessing the test-retest reliability of the social value orientation slider measure," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 17(1), pages 31-49, January.
    20. Masters-Waage, Theodore C. & Nai, Jared & Reb, Jochen & Sim, Samantha & Narayanan, Jayanth & Tan, Noriko, 2021. "Going far together by being here now: Mindfulness increases cooperation in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 189-205.

    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.