IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/jrp/jrpwrp/2009-071.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Making the World a better Place: Experimental evidence from the generosity Game

Author

Listed:
  • Werner Güth

    (Max Planck Institute of Economics)

  • M. Vittoria Levati

    (Max Planck Institute of Economics)

  • Matteo Ploner

    (Max Planck Institute of Economics)

Abstract

We study ultimatum and dictator experiments where the first mover chooses the amount of money to be distributed between the players within a given interval, knowing that her own share is fixed. Thus, the first mover is faced with scarcity, but not with the typical trade-off between her own and the other's payoff. Removing the trade-off inspires significant generosity, which is not affected by the second mover's veto power. On the whole our results con?rm heterogeneity in behavior, but point to efficiency concerns as the predominant motive.

Suggested Citation

  • Werner Güth & M. Vittoria Levati & Matteo Ploner, 2009. "Making the World a better Place: Experimental evidence from the generosity Game," Jena Economics Research Papers 2009-071, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    • Handle: RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2009-071
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://oweb.b67.uni-jena.de/Papers/jerp2009/wp_2009_071.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Werner Güth & Charlotte Klempt & Kerstin Pull, 2019. "Cognitively differentiating between sharing games: inferences from choice and belief data of proposer participants," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(1), pages 605-614.
    2. Haoran He & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "Are teams less inequality averse than individuals?," Post-Print halshs-01077253, HAL.
    3. Agnes Bäker & Werner Güth & Kerstin Pull & M. Stadler, 2010. "Does Entitlement Crowd Out Efficiency or Equality Seeking? - Selling the Roles in Generosity Game Experiments -," Jena Economics Research Papers 2010-091, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    4. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    5. Pelligra, Vittorio & Stanca, Luca, 2013. "To give or not to give? Equity, efficiency and altruistic behavior in an artefactual field experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 1-9.
    6. He, Haoran & Wu, Keyu, 2016. "Choice set, relative income, and inequity aversion: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 177-193.
    7. Güth, Werner, 2010. "The Generosity Game and calibration of inequity aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 155-157, April.
    8. He, Haoran & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2017. "Are group members less inequality averse than individual decision makers?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 111-124.
    9. Ben D'Exelle & Els Lecoutere & Bjorn Van Campenhout, 2010. "Social status and bargaining when resources are scarce: Evidence from a field lab experiment," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 10-09, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    10. Werner Güth & Kerstin Pull & Manfred Stadler & Agnes Stribeck, 2010. "Equity versus Efficiency? Evidence from Three-Person Generosity Experiments," Games, MDPI, vol. 1(2), pages 1-14, April.
    11. Haoran He & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "Are team members less inequality averse than individual decision makers?," Working Papers halshs-00996545, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ultimatum; Dictator; Social Preferences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    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:jrp:jrpwrp:2009-071. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Markus Pasche (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.jenecon.de .

    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.