BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether people respond differently to low and high stakes in Dictator and Ultimatum Games. We assumed that if we raised the stakes high enough, we would observe more self-orientated behavior because fairness would become too costly, in spite of a possible risk of a higher punishment. METHODS: A questionnaire was completed by a sample of 524 university students of biology. A mixed linear model was used to test the relation between the amount at stake (CZK 20, 200, 2,000, 20,000 and 200,000, i.e., approximately $1-$10,000) and the shares, as well as the subjects' gender and the design of the study (single vs. multiple games for different amounts). RESULTS: We have discovered a significant relationship between the amount at stake and the minimum acceptable offer in the Ultimatum Game and the proposed shares in both Ultimatum and Dictator Games (p = 0.001, p<0.001, p = 0.0034). The difference between playing a single game or more games with several amounts at stake did not influence the relation between the stakes and the offered and minimum acceptable shares. Women proved significantly more generous than men in their offers in the Dictator Game (p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that people's behavior in the Dictator and Ultimatum Games depends on the amount at stake. The players tended to lower their relative proposed shares, as well as their relative minimum acceptable offers. We propose that the Responders' sense of equity and fair play depends on the stakes because of the costs of maintaining fairness. However, our results also suggest that the price of fairness is very high and that it is very difficult, probably even impossible, to buy the transition of Homo sociologicus into Homo economicus.

Biology Department The Faculty of Science Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Güth W, Schmittberger R, Schwarze B (1982) An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J Econ Behav Organ 3: 367–388.

Camerer CF (2003) Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH (1986) Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. Am Econ Rev 76: 728–741.

Forsythe R, Horowitz J, Savin NS, Sefton M (1994) Fairness in simple bargaining games. Game Econ Behav 6: 347–369.

Rabin M (1993) Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. Am Econ Rev 83: 1281–1302.

Levine DK (1998) Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Rev Econ Dynam 1: 593–622.

Fehr E, Schmidt K (1999) A theory of fairness, competition and cooperation. Q J Econ 114: 817–851.

Bolton GE, Ockenfels A (2000) ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. Am Econ Rev 90: 166–93.

Güth W, van Damme E (1998) Information, strategic behavior and fairness in ultimatum bargaining: An experimental study. J Math Psychol 42: 227–247. PubMed

Camerer CF, Thaler RH (1995) Anomalies: Ultimatums, dictators and manners. J Econ Perspect 9: 209–219.

Falk A, Fehr E, Fischbacher U (2003) On the nature of fair behaviour. Econ Inq 41: 20–26.

Kagel J, Kim C, Moser D (1996) Fairness in ultimatum games with asymmetric information and asymmetric payoffs. Game Econ Behav 13: 100–110.

Rotemberg JJ (2008) Minimally acceptable altruism and the ultimatum game. J Econ Behav Organ 66: 457–476.

Levitt SD, List JA (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? J Econ Perspect 21: 153–174.

Tompkinson P, Bethwaite J (1995) The ultimatum game: raising the stakes. J Econ Behav Organ 27: 439–451.

Hoffman E, McCabe KA, Smith VL (1996) On expectations and monetary stakes in ultimatum games. Int J Game Theory 25: 289–301.

Slonim R, Roth AE (1998) Learning in high stakes ultimatum games: An experiment in the Slovak Republic. Econometrica 66: 569–596.

Cameron L (1999) Raising the stakes in the ultimatum game: Experimental evidence from Indonesia. Econ Inq 37: 47–59.

Carpenter J, Verhoogen E, Burks S (2005) The effect of stakes in distribution experiments. Econ Lett 86: 393–398.

Munier B, Zaharia C (2002) High stakes and acceptance behavior in ultimatum bargaining. Theor Decis 53: 187–207.

Andersen BS, Ertaç S, Gneezy U, Hoffman M, List JA (2011) Stakes matter in ultimatum games. Am Econ Rev 101: 3427–3439.

Johansson-Stenman O, Mahmud M, Martinsson P (2005) Does stake size matter in trust games? Econ Lett 88: 365–369.

Kocher MG, Martinsson P, Visser M (2008) Does stake size matter for cooperation and punishment? Econ Lett 99: 508–511.

List JA, Cherry T (2008) Examining the role of fairness in high stakes allocation decisions. J Econ Behav Organ 65: 1–8.

Blake PR, Rand DG (2010) Currency value moderates equity preference among young children. Evol Hum Behav 31: 210–218.

Engel C (2011) Dictator games: a meta study. Exp Econ 14: 583–610.

Camerer CF, Hogarth RM (1999) The effects of financial incentives in experiments: A review and capital-labor-production framework. J Risk Uncertainty 19: 7–42.

Binswanger HP (1980) Attitudes toward risk experimental measurement in rural India. Am J Agr Econ 62: 395–407.

Holt CA, Laury SK (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Am Econ Rev 92: 1644–1655.

Roth AE, Erev I (1995) Learning in extensive-form games: Experimental data and simple dynamics models in the intermediate term. Game Econ Behav 8: 164–212.

Flegr J, Příplatová L (2010) Testosterone and cortisol levels in university students reflect actual rather than estimated number of wrong answers on written exam. Neuroendocrinol Lett 31: 577–581. PubMed

Page KM, Nowak MA, Sigmund K (2000) The spatial ultimatum game. P Roy Soc Lon B Bio 267: 2177–2182. PubMed PMC

Bekkers R (2007) Measuring altruistic behavior in surveys: The all-or-nothing dictator game. Surv Res Meth 3: 139–144.

Hertwig R, Ortmann A (2001) Experimental practices in economics: a methodological challenge for psychologists? Behav Brain Sci 24: 383–403. PubMed

Lindová J, Kubena AA, Šturcová H, Křivohlavá R, Novotná M, et al. (2010) Pattern of money allocation in experimental games supports the stress hypothesis of gender differences in Toxoplasma gondii-induced behavioural changes. Folia Parasit 57: 136–142. PubMed

Amir O, Rand DG, Gal YK (2012) Economic games on the internet: the effect of $1 stakes. PloS one 7: e31461 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031461. PubMed DOI PMC

Bekkers R, Wiepking P (2006) To give or not to give thats the question. Nonprof Volunt Sec Q 35: 533–540.

Brown E (2005) College, social capital, and charitable giving. In AC Brooks (Ed.), Gifts of time and money: The role of charity in America’s communities. Rowman & Littlefield.

Eckel C, Grossman P (2001) Chivalry and solidarity in ultimatum games. Econ Inq 39: 171–188.

Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A (2010) The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci 33: 61–83. PubMed

Hyper-altruistic behavior vanishes with high stakes

Looking Like a Million Dollars: Does Attractiveness Priming Increase Altruistic Behavior in Experimental Games?

Justine effect: punishment of the unduly self-sacrificing cooperative individuals