IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/60982.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Digit ratio (2D:4D) and altruism: evidence from a large, multi-ethnic sample

Author

Listed:
  • Galizzi, Matteo M.
  • Nieboer, Jeroen

Abstract

We look at the links between the Digit Ratio - the ratio of the length of the index finger to the length of the ring finger – for both right and left hands, and giving in a Dictator Game. Unlike previous studies with exclusively Caucasian subjects, we recruited a large, ethnically diverse sample. Our main results are as follows. First, for Caucasian subjects we estimate a significant positive regression coefficient for the right hand digit ratio and a significant negative coefficient for its squared measure. These results replicate the findings of Brañas-Garza et al. (2013), who also observe an inverted U-shaped relationship for Caucasian subjects. Second, we are not able to find any significant association of the right hand digit ratio with giving in the Dictator Game for the other main ethnic groups in our sample. Third, we find no significant association between giving in the Dictator Game and the left hand digit ratio.

Suggested Citation

  • Galizzi, Matteo M. & Nieboer, Jeroen, 2015. "Digit ratio (2D:4D) and altruism: evidence from a large, multi-ethnic sample," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60982, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:60982
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/60982/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan Stoop, 2014. "From the lab to the field: envelopes, dictators and manners," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(2), pages 304-313, June.
    2. C. Eisenegger & M. Naef & R. Snozzi & M. Heinrichs & E. Fehr, 2010. "Prejudice and truth about the effect of testosterone on human bargaining behaviour," Nature, Nature, vol. 463(7279), pages 356-359, January.
    3. John A. List, 2007. "On the Interpretation of Giving in Dictator Games," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(3), pages 482-493.
    4. repec:dgr:uvatin:20110046 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Cunningham, William H & Anderson, W Thomas, Jr & Murphy, John H, 1974. "Are Students Real People?," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(3), pages 399-409, July.
    6. Jeffrey Carpenter & Cristina Connolly & Caitlin Myers, 2008. "Altruistic behavior in a representative dictator experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 282-298, September.
    7. Matthew Pearson & Burkhard Schipper, 2012. "The visible hand: finger ratio (2D:4D) and competitive bidding," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 510-529, September.
    8. Jo Thori Lind & Halvor Mehlum, 2010. "With or Without U? The Appropriate Test for a U‐Shaped Relationship," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 72(1), pages 109-118, February.
    9. Paul J Zak & Angela A Stanton & Sheila Ahmadi, 2007. "Oxytocin Increases Generosity in Humans," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(11), pages 1-5, November.
    10. John V.C. Nye & Grigory Androuschak & Desirée Desierto & Garett Jones & Maria Yudkevich, 2012. "2D : 4D Asymmetry and Gender Differences in Academic Performance : Evidence from Moscow and Manila," UP School of Economics Discussion Papers 201203, University of the Philippines School of Economics.
    11. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Jaromír Kovářík & Levent Neyse, 2013. "Second-to-Fourth Digit Ratio Has a Non-Monotonic Impact on Altruism," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-10, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    14. Gachter, Simon & Herrmann, Benedikt & Thoni, Christian, 2004. "Trust, voluntary cooperation, and socio-economic background: survey and experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 505-531, December.
    15. Schipper, Burkhard C., 2023. "Sex hormones and choice under risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    16. Burkhard Schipper, 2012. "Sex Hormones and Choice under Risk," Working Papers 127, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    17. Diego Aycinena & Rimvydas Baltaduonis & Lucas Rentschler, 2014. "Risk Preferences and Prenatal Exposure to Sex Hormones for Ladinos," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-10, August.
    18. Buser, Thomas, 2012. "Digit ratios, the menstrual cycle and social preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 457-470.
    19. Michael Kosfeld & Markus Heinrichs & Paul J. Zak & Urs Fischbacher & Ernst Fehr, 2005. "Oxytocin increases trust in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 435(7042), pages 673-676, June.
    20. Nicholas Bardsley, 2008. "Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(2), pages 122-133, June.
    21. Andreoni, James, 1988. "Privately provided public goods in a large economy: The limits of altruism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 57-73, February.
    22. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List, 2007. "What Do Laboratory Experiments Measuring Social Preferences Reveal About the Real World?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 153-174, Spring.
    23. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    24. Filippos Exadaktylos & Antonio M. Espin & Pablo Branas-Garza, 2012. "Experimental Subjects are Not Different," Working Papers 12-11, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    25. Berg Joyce & Dickhaut John & McCabe Kevin, 1995. "Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 122-142, July.
    26. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Aldo Rustichini, 2011. "Organizing Effects of Testosterone and Economic Behavior: Not Just Risk Taking," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(12), pages 1-8, December.
    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. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Espín, Antonio M. & Garcia, Teresa & Kovářík, Jaromír, 2018. "Digit ratio (2D:4D) predicts pro-social behavior in economic games only for unsatisfied individuals," MPRA Paper 86166, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Levent Neyse & Ferdinand M. Vieider & Patrick Ring & Catharina Probst & Christian Kaernbach & Thilo Eimeren & Ulrich Schmidt, 2020. "Risk attitudes and digit ratio (2D:4D): Evidence from prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 29-51, February.
    3. Neyse, Levent & Bosworth, Steven & Ring, Patrick & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2016. "Overconfidence, Incentives and Digit Ratio," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 130145, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. Cecchi, Francesco & Duchoslav, Jan, 2018. "The effect of prenatal stress on cooperation: Evidence from violent conflict in Uganda," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 35-56.
    5. Neyse, Levent & Johannesson, Magnus & Dreber, Anna, 2021. "2D:4D does not predict economic preferences: Evidence from a large, representative sample," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 185, pages 390-401.
    6. Elle Parslow & Eva Ranehill & Niklas Zethraeus & Liselott Blomberg & Bo Schoultz & Angelica Lindén Hirschberg & Magnus Johannesson & Anna Dreber, 2019. "The digit ratio (2D:4D) and economic preferences: no robust associations in a sample of 330 women," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(2), pages 149-169, December.
    7. Neyse, Levent & Ring, Patrick & Bosworth, Steven, 2015. "Prenatal testosterone exposure predicts mindfulness: Does this mediate its effect on happiness?," Kiel Working Papers 1999, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    8. Ozan Yüksel Tektas & Lorenz Kapsner & Miriam Lemmer & Polyxeni Bouna-Pyrrou & Piotr Lewczuk & Bernd Lenz & Johannes Kornhuber, 2019. "Digit ratio (2D:4D) and academic success as measured by achievement in the academic degree “Habilitation”," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.
    9. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Chowdhury, Subhasish M. & Espín, Antonio M. & Nieboer, Jeroen, 2023. "‘Born this Way’? Prenatal exposure to testosterone may determine behavior in competition and conflict," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    10. Hand, Chris, 2020. "Biology and being green: The effect of prenatal testosterone exposure on pro-environmental consumption behaviour," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 619-626.

    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. 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.
    2. Thomas Buser, 2011. "Hormones and Social Preferences," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-046/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    3. Buser, Thomas, 2012. "Digit ratios, the menstrual cycle and social preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 457-470.
    4. Schipper, Burkhard C., 2023. "Sex hormones and choice under risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Judit Alonso & Roberto Di Paolo & Giovanni Ponti & Marcello Sartarelli, 2017. "Some (Mis)facts about 2D:4D, Preferences and Personality," Working Papers. Serie AD 2017-08, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    7. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Espín, Antonio M. & Garcia, Teresa & Kovářík, Jaromír, 2018. "Digit ratio (2D:4D) predicts pro-social behavior in economic games only for unsatisfied individuals," MPRA Paper 86166, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Thomas Buser, 2010. "Handedness predicts Social Preferences: Evidence connecting the Lab to the Field," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 10-119/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    9. Burkhard C. Schipper, 2015. "Sex Hormones and Competitive Bidding," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(2), pages 249-266, February.
    10. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Jaume García-Segarra & Alexander Ritschel, 2018. "The Big Robber Game," ECON - Working Papers 291, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    11. Neyse, Levent & Friedl, Andreas & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2014. "Payment Scheme Changes and Effort Provision: The Effect of Digit Ratio," MPRA Paper 59549, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2015. "Do risk and time preferences have biological roots?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(1), pages 235-256, July.
    13. Pablo Brañas‐Garza & Matteo M. Galizzi & Jeroen Nieboer, 2018. "Experimental And Self‐Reported Measures Of Risk Taking And Digit Ratio (2d:4d): Evidence From A Large, Systematic Study," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1131-1157, August.
    14. Pearson, Matthew & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2013. "Menstrual cycle and competitive bidding," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1-20.
    15. Neyse, Levent & Johannesson, Magnus & Dreber, Anna, 2021. "2D:4D does not predict economic preferences: Evidence from a large, representative sample," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 390-401.
    16. Elle Parslow & Eva Ranehill & Niklas Zethraeus & Liselott Blomberg & Bo Schoultz & Angelica Lindén Hirschberg & Magnus Johannesson & Anna Dreber, 2019. "The digit ratio (2D:4D) and economic preferences: no robust associations in a sample of 330 women," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(2), pages 149-169, December.
    17. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Chowdhury, Subhasish M. & Espín, Antonio M. & Nieboer, Jeroen, 2023. "‘Born this Way’? Prenatal exposure to testosterone may determine behavior in competition and conflict," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    18. Murnighan, J. Keith & Wang, Long, 2016. "The social world as an experimental game," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 80-94.
    19. Neyse, Levent & Vieider, Ferdinand M. & Ring, Patrick & Probst, Catharina & Kaernbach, Christian & Eimeren, Thilo van & Schmidt, Ulrich, 2020. "Risk attitudes and digit ratio (2D:4D): Evidence from prospect theory," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, issue 60, pages 29-51.
    20. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    testosterone; digit ratio; social preferences; altruism; dictator game;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • 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:ehl:lserod:60982. 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: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.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.