Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-sk4tg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-14T18:26:41.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of role uncertainty in modified dictator games

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Nagore Iriberri  and
Pedro Rey-Biel
Nagore Iriberri*
Affiliation:
Departament d'Economia i Empresa, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Ramón Trías Fargas 25-27, 08005 Barcelona, Spain
Pedro Rey-Biel*
Affiliation:
Department d'Economia i d'Historia Econòmica, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain
*
e-mail: nagore.iriberri@upf.edu
e-mail: pedro.rey@uab.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We compare behavior in modified dictator games with and without role uncertainty. Subjects choose between a selfish action, a costly surplus creating action (altruistic behavior) and a costly surplus destroying action (spiteful behavior). While costly surplus creating actions are the most frequent under role uncertainty (64%), selfish actions become the most frequent without role uncertainty (69%). Also, the frequency of surplus destroying choices is negligible with role uncertainty (1%) but not so without it (11%). A classification of subjects into four different types of interdependent preferences (Selfish, Social Welfare maximizing, Inequity Averse and Competitive) shows that the use of role uncertainty overestimates the prevalence of Social Welfare maximizing preferences in the subject population (from 74% with role uncertainty to 21% without it) and underestimates Selfish and Inequity Averse preferences. An additional treatment, in which subjects undertake an understanding test before participating in the experiment with role uncertainty, shows that the vast majority of subjects (93%) correctly understand the payoff mechanism with role uncertainty, but yet surplus creating actions were most frequent. Our results warn against the use of role uncertainty in experiments that aim to measure the prevalence of interdependent preferences.

Keywords

Role uncertaintyRole reversalInterdependent preferencesSocial welfare maximizingInequity aversionMixture-of-types modelsStrategy methodExperiments

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior D81: Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty C72: Noncooperative Games
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , May 2011 , pp. 160 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © Economic Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (2002). Giving according to GARP: an experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70, 737–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J., Castillo, M., & Petrie, R. (2003). What do bargainers’ preferences look like? Experiments with a convex ultimatum game. The American Economic Review, 93, 672–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, G., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: a theory of equity, reciprocity and competition. The American Economic Review, 90(1), 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, G., & Ockenfels, A. (2006). Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments: comment. The American Economic Review, 96(5), 1906–1911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandts, J., & Charness, G. (2009). The strategy method: a survey of experimental evidence. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Burks, S., Carpenter, J., & Verhoogen, E. (2003). Playing both roles in the trust game. Journal of Economic Behavior and organization, 51, 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Charness, G., & Grosskopf, B. (2001). Relative payoffs and happiness: an experimental study. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 45, 301–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding interdependent with simple tests. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 817–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. (2010). Some issues of methods, theories, and experimental designs. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 73(1), 24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelmann, D., & Strobel, M. (2004). Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. The American Economic Review, 94(4), 857–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U. (2007). Z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisman, R., Kariv, S., & Markovits, D. (2007). Individual preferences for giving. The American Economic Review, 97(2), 153–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greiner, B. (2004). The online recruitment system ORSEE 2.0—a guide for the organization of experiments in economics. University of Cologne WP Series in Economics (Vol. 10).Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. (1953). Cardinal utility in welfare economics and in the theory of risk-taking. Journal of Political Economy, 61(5), 434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hey, J., & Lee, J. (2005). Do subjects separate or are they sophisticated? Experimental Economics, 8, 233–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iriberri, N., & Rey-Biel, P. (2008). Elicited beliefs and social information in modified dictator games: what do dictators believe other dictators do? UPF Working Papers Series N. 1137.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A. (1995). Bargaining experiments. In Kagel, J. & Roth, A. (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economics (pp. 253–348).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selten, R. (1967). Die Strategiemethode zur Erforschung des Eingeschränt Rationalen Verhaltens im Rahmen eines Oligopolexperiments. In Sauermann, H. (Ed.), Beiträge zur Experimentellen Wirtschaftsforscgung (pp. 136–168).Google Scholar
Smith, Vernon L. (2010). Theory and experiment: what are the questions? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 73(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar