Anonymity and incentives: An investigation of techniques to reduce socially desirable responding in the Trust Game

Economic games offer a convenient approach for the study of prosocial behavior. As an advantage, they allow for straightforward implementation of different techniques to reduce socially desirable responding. We investigated the effectiveness of the most prominent of these techniques, namely providing behavior-contingent incentives and maximizing anonymity in three versions of the Trust Game: (i) a hypothetical version without monetary incentives and with a typical level of anonymity, (ii) an incentivized version with monetary incentives and the same (typical) level of anonymity, and (iii) an indirect questioning version without incentives but with a maximum level of anonymity, rendering responses inconclusive due to adding random noise via the Randomized Response Technique. Results from a large (N = 1,267) and heterogeneous sample showed comparable levels of trust for the hypothetical and incentivized versions using direct questioning. However, levels of trust decreased when maximizing the inconclusiveness of responses through indirect questioning. This implies that levels of trust might be particularly sensitive to changes in individuals’ anonymity but not necessarily to monetary incentives.

[1]  David G. Rand,et al.  Spontaneous giving and calculated greed , 2012, Nature.

[2]  David Dunning,et al.  Do people trust too much or too little , 2009 .

[3]  U. Fischbacher,et al.  A Nation-Wide Laboratory: Examining Trust and Trustworthiness by Integrating Behavioral Experiments into Representative Survey , 2003, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[4]  Benjamin E. Hilbig,et al.  Truth Will Out , 2015 .

[5]  Peter G. M. van der Heijden,et al.  Meta-Analysis of Randomized Response Research , 2005 .

[6]  L. Cameron,et al.  Raising the Stakes in the Ultimatum Game: Experimental Evidence From Indonesia , 1999 .

[7]  Benjamin E. Hilbig,et al.  From personality to altruistic behavior (and back): Evidence from a double-blind dictator game. , 2015 .

[8]  R. Hertwig,et al.  Experimental practices in economics: A methodological challenge for psychologists? , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[9]  Christoph Engel,et al.  Dictator games: a meta study , 2010 .

[10]  C. Parks,et al.  Social Value Orientation and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta-Analysis , 2009 .

[11]  Daniel John Zizzo,et al.  Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments , 2008 .

[12]  G. Tian,et al.  Two new models for survey sampling with sensitive characteristic: design and analysis , 2008 .

[13]  Colin Camerer,et al.  The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework , 1999 .

[14]  Christoph Bühren,et al.  Imagine Being a Nice Guy: A Note on Hypothetical vs. Incentivized Social Preferences , 2015, Judgment and Decision Making.

[15]  K. Vohs,et al.  Psychology as the Science of Self-reports and Finger Movements Whatever Happened to Actual Behavior? , 2022 .

[16]  Morten Moshagen,et al.  Correlation and Regression Analyses for Randomized Response Data , 2016 .

[17]  V. Smith,et al.  Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games , 1994 .

[18]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  Testing order constraints : Qualitative differences between Bayes factors and normalized maximum likelihood , 2014, 1411.2778.

[19]  Ulf-Dietrich Reips.  Standards for Internet-based experimenting. , 2002, Experimental psychology.

[20]  Edgar Erdfelder,et al.  An experimental validation method for questioning techniques that assess sensitive issues. , 2014, Experimental psychology.

[21]  B. Hilbig,et al.  When the cat’s away, some mice will play: A basic trait account of dishonest behavior , 2015 .

[22]  Gari Walkowitz,et al.  It pays to pay – Big Five personality influences on co-operative behaviour in an incentivized and hypothetical prisoner’s dilemma game ☆ , 2011 .

[23]  E. Wagenmakers,et al.  Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists: A tutorial on the Savage–Dickey method , 2010, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  Morten Moshagen,et al.  multiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[25]  Paul L. Hettler,et al.  Hypothetical and Real Incentives in the Ultimatum Game and Andreoni's Public Goods Game: An Experimental Study , 2007 .

[26]  Axel Franzen,et al.  Anonymity in the Dictator Game Revisited , 2012 .

[27]  Jochen Musch,et al.  A stochastic lie detector , 2012, Behavior research methods.

[28]  C. B. Colby.  The weirdest people in the world , 1973 .

[29]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[30]  Alexandra A. Mislin,et al.  Trust games: A meta-analysis , 2011 .

[31]  Håkan J. Holm,et al.  Trust in surveys and games - A methodological contribution on the influence of money and location , 2008 .

[32]  B. Hilbig,et al.  Trust: An Integrative Review from a Person–Situation Perspective , 2015 .

[33]  Todd L. Cherry,et al.  Hardnose the Dictator , 2002 .

[34]  Jürgen Schupp,et al.  Measuring Trust: Experiments and Surveys in Contrast and Combination , 2009, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[35]  S L Warner,et al.  Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer bias. , 1965, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[36]  Pablo Brañas-Garza,et al.  Poverty in dictator games: Awakening solidarity , 2003 .

[37]  U. Gneezy,et al.  Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 25, Number 4—Fall 2011—Pages 191–210 When and Why Incentives (Don’t) Work to Modify Behavior , 2022 .

[38]  Joyce E. Berg,et al.  Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History , 1995 .

[39]  Morten Moshagen,et al.  On Measuring the Sixth Basic Personality Dimension: A Comparison Between HEXACO Honesty-Humility and Big Six Honesty-Propriety , 2017, Assessment.

[40]  M. Lee,et al.  Bayesian Cognitive Modeling: A Practical Course , 2014 .

[41]  Jeffrey N. Rouder,et al.  The fallacy of placing confidence in confidence intervals , 2015, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[42]  Avner Ben-Ner,et al.  Economic and hypothetical dictator game experiments: Incentive effects at the individual level , 2008 .

[43]  Martyn Plummer,et al.  JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling , 2003 .

[44]  Jochen Musch,et al.  Assessing the validity of two indirect questioning techniques: A Stochastic Lie Detector versus the Crosswise Model , 2016, Behavior research methods.

[45]  Roberto A. Weber,et al.  Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness , 2007 .

[46]  Avner Ben-Ner,et al.  Identity and in-group/out-group differentiation in work and giving behaviors: Experimental evidence , 2009 .

[47]  Emily Balcetis,et al.  A Mile in Moccasins: How Situational Experience Diminishes Dispositionism in Social Inference , 2008, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[48]  Jochen Musch,et al.  Surveying Multiple Sensitive Attributes using an Extension of the Randomized-Response Technique , 2012 .

[49]  Ulf-Dietrick Reips,et al.  Internet-Based Psychological Experimenting , 2002 .

[50]  Edmund Fantino,et al.  How reinforcer type affects choice in economic games , 2007, Behavioural Processes.

[51]  Catherine C. Eckel,et al.  Altruism in Anonymous Dictator Games , 1996 .

[52]  Le Zhang,et al.  The effects of the take-option in dictator-game experiments: a comment on Engel’s (2011) meta-study , 2014 .

[53]  Devin G. Pope,et al.  What Motivates Effort? Evidence and Expert Forecasts , 2016 .

[54]  J. List.  On the Interpretation of Giving in Dictator Games , 2007, Journal of Political Economy.