Playing a Game or Making a Decision? Methodological Issues in the Measurement of Distributional Preferences

In terms of role assignment and informational characteristics, different contexts have been used when measuring distributional preferences. This could be problematic as contextual variance may inadvertently muddle the measurement process. We use a within-subjects design and systemically vary role assignment as well as the way information is displayed to subjects when measuring distributional preferences in resource allocation tasks as well as proper games. Specifically we examine choice behavior in the contexts of role certainty, role uncertainty, decomposed games, and matrix games. Results show that there is large heterogeneity in the choices people make when deciding how to allocate resources between themselves and some other person under different contextual frames. For instance, people make more prosocial choices under role uncertainty as compared to role certainty. Furthermore, altering the way information is displayed given a particular situation can have a more dramatic effect on choice behavior than altering the situation itself. That is, depending on how information is displayed, people may behave as if they would perform a non-strategic decision making task when in fact they are playing a proper game characterized by strategic interdependence.

[1]  Ryan O. Murphy,et al.  Social preferences, positive expectations, and trust based cooperation , 2015 .

[2]  Matthew R. Roelofs,et al.  Heterogeneous preferences for altruism: gender and personality, social status, giving and taking , 2011 .

[3]  M. Kocher,et al.  Revealed distributional preferences: Individuals vs. teams☆☆☆ , 2014, Journal of economic behavior & organization.

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

[5]  Shachar Kariv,et al.  Individual Preferences for Giving , 2005 .

[6]  Hans-Theo Normann,et al.  A Within-Subject Analysis of Other-Regarding Preferences , 2010, Games Econ. Behav..

[7]  Stuart Mestelman,et al.  The Impact of Sex, Value Orientations and Risk Attitudes on Trust and Reciprocity , 2006 .

[8]  Aurélie Dariel,et al.  Conditional Cooperation and Framing Effects , 2018, Games.

[9]  Till Requate,et al.  “A profit table or a profit calculator?” A note on the design of Cournot oligopoly experiments , 2011 .

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

[11]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Measuring Social Norms and Preferences Using Experimental Games: A Guide for Social Scientists , 2002 .

[12]  Martin Sefton,et al.  Incentives in simple bargaining games , 1992 .

[13]  Joep Sonnemans,et al.  On the Dynamics of Social Ties Structures in Groups , 2006 .

[14]  j. s. deboer Social Preferences and Context Sensitivity , 2017 .

[15]  U. Fischbacher z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments , 1999 .

[16]  M. Rabin Published by: American , 2022 .

[17]  Ryan O. Murphy,et al.  Measuring Social Value Orientation , 2011, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[18]  Wim B. G. Liebrand,et al.  The effect of social motives, communication and group size on behaviour in an N-person multi-stage mixed-motive game , 1984 .

[19]  G. Walkowitz On the Validity of Cost-Saving Methods in Dictator-Game Experiments: A Systematic Test , 2017 .

[20]  Gebhard Kirchgässner,et al.  Towards a theory of low-cost decisions , 1992 .

[21]  John H. Miller,et al.  NOTES AND COMMENTS GIVING ACCORDING TO GARP: AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF THE CONSISTENCY OF PREFERENCES FOR ALTRUISM , 2002 .

[22]  Ryan O. Murphy,et al.  Social Value Orientation , 2014, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[23]  Arye L. Hillman Expressive behavior in economics and politics , 2010 .

[24]  Matthias Greiff Affective Social Ties without the Need to Belong , 2013 .

[25]  Urs Fischbacher,et al.  The behavioral validity of the strategy method in public good experiments , 2012 .

[26]  Martin Strobel,et al.  Inequality Aversion, Efficiency, and Maximin Preferences in Simple Distribution Experiments , 2002 .

[27]  N. Bardsley Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact? , 2008 .

[28]  Reinhard Selten,et al.  The effect of payoff tables on experimental oligopoly behavior , 2012 .

[29]  R. O. Murphy,et al.  Explaining Behavior in Public Goods Games: How Preferences and Beliefs Affect Contribution Levels , 2013 .

[30]  Nagore Iriberri,et al.  The role of role uncertainty in modified dictator games , 2008 .

[31]  W. Przepiorka,et al.  Social Dilemmas, Institutions, and the Evolution of Cooperation , 2017 .

[32]  Stefan Pfattheicher,et al.  Honesty-Humility Under Threat: Self-Uncertainty Destroys Trust Among the Nice Guys , 2018, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[33]  Matthias Sutter,et al.  Distributional preferences and competitive behavior , 2012, Journal of economic behavior & organization.

[34]  P. Juslin,et al.  Self as Sample , 2005 .

[35]  Benjamin E. Hilbig,et al.  Trust in me, trust in you: A social projection account of the link between personality, cooperativeness, and trustworthiness expectations , 2014 .

[36]  Cooperators and reciprocators: A within-subject analysis of pro-social behavior , 2014 .

[37]  A. Tversky,et al.  Thinking through uncertainty: Nonconsequential reasoning and choice , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[38]  G. Charness,et al.  Relative Payoffs and Happiness: An Experimental Study , 2001 .

[39]  J. Sonnemans,et al.  Value Orientations, Expectations and Voluntary Contributions in Public Goods. , 1996 .

[40]  D. G. Pruitt,et al.  Reward structure and cooperation: the decomposed Prisoner's Dilemma game. , 1967, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[41]  Paolo Crosetto,et al.  A Flexible z-Tree Implementation of the Social Value Orientation Slider Measure (Murphy et al. 2011) – Manual , 2012 .

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

[43]  J. Brosig Identifying cooperative behavior: some experimental results in a prisoner's dilemma game , 2002 .

[44]  R. Kerschbamer,et al.  The geometry of distributional preferences and a non-parametric identification approach: The Equality Equivalence Test , 2013, European economic review.

[45]  J. Horowitz,et al.  Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments , 1994 .

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

[47]  Stuart Mestelman,et al.  Hypothetical bias in value orientations ring games , 2013 .

[48]  J. Kruskal Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis , 1964 .

[49]  U. Fischbacher,et al.  Are People Conditionally Cooperative? Evidence from a Public Goods Experiment , 2001 .

[50]  D. Messick,et al.  Motivational bases of choice in experimental games , 1968 .

[51]  Mark Van Vugt,et al.  From Games to Giving: Social Value Orientation Predicts Donations to Noble Causes , 2007 .

[52]  Ulrich Kamecke,et al.  Rotations: Matching schemes that efficiently preserve the best reply structure of a one shot game , 1997, Int. J. Game Theory.

[53]  M. Rigdon,et al.  Gender, Expectations and the Price of Giving , 2011 .

[54]  Lisa Bruttel,et al.  Gender Differences in the Response to Decision Power and Responsibility - Framing Effects in a Dictator Game , 2018, Games.

[55]  J. R. Levine,et al.  Reward size, method of presentation, and number of alternatives in a Prisoner's Dilemma game. , 1969 .

[56]  M. V. Levati,et al.  Context and Interpretation in Laboratory Experiments: The Case of Reciprocity , 2011 .