IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0317886.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender differences in dictator giving: A high-power laboratory test

Author

Listed:
  • Iván Barreda-Tarrazona
  • Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutiérrez
  • Marina Pavan
  • Gerardo Sabater-Grande

Abstract

We gather information from a large laboratory sample comprising 1,161 subjects and study gender differences in altruism using a dual-role dictator game. We control for factors potentially affecting the role of gender in dictator giving, such as the subject’s age, cognitive ability, and personality traits, together with the dictator’s self-reported emotions motivating the decision, and response time. We find that women behave in a significantly more generous way than men: after controlling for the factors mentioned above, females transfer 7.5 percentage points (about 40%) more of their endowment than males, on average. Moreover, we find that gender differences in giving are mediated by reasoning ability, personality traits and emotions.

Suggested Citation

  • Iván Barreda-Tarrazona & Ainhoa Jaramillo-Gutiérrez & Marina Pavan & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2025. "Gender differences in dictator giving: A high-power laboratory test," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(2), pages 1-16, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0317886
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0317886
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0317886
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0317886&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0317886?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    2. Axel Franzen & Sonja Pointner, 2013. "The external validity of giving in the dictator game," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(2), pages 155-169, June.
    3. Matthias Benz & Stephan Meier, 2008. "Do people behave in experiments as in the field?—evidence from donations," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 268-281, September.
    4. Alexander Peysakhovich & Martin A. Nowak & David G. Rand, 2014. "Humans display a ‘cooperative phenotype’ that is domain general and temporally stable," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, 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. 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.
    2. Gagnon, Nickolas & Saulle, Riccardo D. & Zaunbrecher, Henrik W., 2021. "Decreasing Incomes Increase Selfishness," FEEM Working Papers 317127, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    3. Engelmann, Dirk & Friedrichsen, Jana & Kübler, Dorothea, 2018. "Fairness in Markets and Market Experiments," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 64, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    4. Walkowitz, Gari, 2021. "Dictator game variants with probabilistic (and cost-saving) payoffs: A systematic test," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    5. Wei Zhan & Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2020. "Does How We Measure Altruism Matter? Playing Both Roles in Dictator Games," Monash Economics Working Papers 05-20, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    6. 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.
    7. Mohsen Mosleh & Alexander J. Stewart & Joshua B. Plotkin & David G. Rand, 2020. "Prosociality in the economic Dictator Game is associated with less parochialism and greater willingness to vote for intergroup compromise," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(1), pages 1-6, January.
    8. Ulrik H. Nielsen, 2014. "Parents' Education and their Adult Offspring's Other-Regarding Behavour," Discussion Papers 14-03, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    9. Christian T. Elbæk & Panagiotis Mitkidis & Lene Aarøe & Tobias Otterbring, 2023. "Subjective socioeconomic status and income inequality are associated with self-reported morality across 67 countries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Potters, Jan & Stoop, Jan, 2016. "Do cheaters in the lab also cheat in the field?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 26-33.
    11. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    12. Müller, Stephan & Rau, Holger A., 2020. "Motivational crowding out effects in charitable giving: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    13. Crawford, Ian & Harris, Donna, 2018. "Social interactions and the influence of “extremists”," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 238-266.
    14. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:1:p:1-6 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Dreber, Anna & Fudenberg, Drew & Rand, David G., 2014. "Who cooperates in repeated games: The role of altruism, inequity aversion, and demographics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 41-55.
    16. Stephan Müller & Holger A Rau, 2019. "Too cold for warm glow? Christmas-season effects in charitable giving," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-13, May.
    17. Rau, Holger & Müller, Stephan, 2017. "Decisions under Uncertainty in Social Contexts," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168228, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Englmaier, Florian & Gebhardt, Georg, 2016. "Social dilemmas in the laboratory and in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 85-96.
    19. Müller, Stephan & Rau, Holger A., 2019. "Decisions under uncertainty in social contexts," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 73-95.
    20. Zachary Oliphant & Chae M. Jaynes & Richard K. Moule Jr., 2020. "Social Preferences and Environmental Behavior: A Comparison of Self-Reported and Observed Behaviors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-16, July.
    21. Wendelin Schnedler & Nina Lucia Stephan, 2020. "Revisiting a Remedy Against Chains of Unkindness," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 72(3), pages 347-364, July.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • D64 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Altruism; Philanthropy; Intergenerational Transfers

    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:plo:pone00:0317886. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.