Sharing losses in dictator and ultimatum games: A meta-analysis

IF 2.5 2区经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS

Journal of Economic Psychology Pub Date : 2024-02-23 DOI:10.1016/j.joep.2024.102713

François Cochard , Alexandre Flage

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Are people less pro-social when sharing losses instead of gains? This paper reports the findings of a meta-analysis of 33 studies with 114 estimates from ultimatum and dictator games in which participants share losses (of money, time, or even physical well-being) instead of gains. We provide evidence that dictators leave significantly more to receivers when sharing losses. Proposers are also fairer when sharing losses, but the result is only significant when protocol biases are controlled for. Receivers, on the other hand, demand significantly more in the loss-sharing ultimatum game than in the gain-sharing game. They also demand significantly more when the strategy method is employed. Moreover, we found that non-students are more generous and fairer when sharing losses than students. Finally, we found that, whether sharing a loss of time, a loss of money, or physical pain, players’ behaviors do not differ in terms of the percentage of loss shared or demanded.

查看原文本刊更多论文

独裁者和最后通牒博弈中的损失分担：元分析✩

当人们分享损失而不是收益时，他们的亲社会性会降低吗？本文报告了对 33 项研究的荟萃分析结果，其中 114 项估计来自最后通牒游戏和独裁者游戏，在这些游戏中，参与者分享的是损失（金钱、时间甚至身体健康）而不是收益。我们提供的证据表明，独裁者在分担损失时会给接受者留下更多。提议者在分担损失时也更公平，但这一结果只有在控制了协议偏差后才显著。另一方面，接收者在分担损失的最后通牒博弈中提出的要求明显多于分担收益的博弈。当采用策略法时，他们的要求也明显更高。此外，我们还发现，与学生相比，非学生在分担损失时更加慷慨和公平。最后，我们发现，无论是分担时间损失、金钱损失还是身体痛苦，博弈者的行为在分担或要求分担损失的比例上并无差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Economic Psychology Multiple-

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

31.40%

发文量

审稿时长

63 days

期刊介绍： The Journal aims to present research that will improve understanding of behavioral, in particular psychological, aspects of economic phenomena and processes. The Journal seeks to be a channel for the increased interest in using behavioral science methods for the study of economic behavior, and so to contribute to better solutions of societal problems, by stimulating new approaches and new theorizing about economic affairs. Economic psychology as a discipline studies the psychological mechanisms that underlie economic behavior. It deals with preferences, judgments, choices, economic interaction, and factors influencing these, as well as the consequences of judgements and decisions for economic processes and phenomena. This includes the impact of economic institutions upon human behavior and well-being. Studies in economic psychology may relate to different levels of aggregation, from the household and the individual consumer to the macro level of whole nations. Economic behavior in connection with inflation, unemployment, taxation, economic development, as well as consumer information and economic behavior in the market place are thus among the fields of interest. The journal also encourages submissions dealing with social interaction in economic contexts, like bargaining, negotiation, or group decision-making. The Journal of Economic Psychology contains: (a) novel reports of empirical (including: experimental) research on economic behavior; (b) replications studies; (c) assessments of the state of the art in economic psychology; (d) articles providing a theoretical perspective or a frame of reference for the study of economic behavior; (e) articles explaining the implications of theoretical developments for practical applications; (f) book reviews; (g) announcements of meetings, conferences and seminars.