Lab studies and behavioural economics

Question 1

How can we study real-world generosity in the lab?

Answer 1

Dictator game

Question 2

what is the dictator given?

Answer 2

Dictator” (subject) is given £10
Recipient is given nothing (£0)

Question 3

what is the dictators choice?

Answer 3

“Dictator” can give any amount of the £10 to the Recipient
£0, £10 anything in between

Question 4

are the dictators known in the game?

Answer 4

no - the Dictator and Recipient are totally anonymous

Question 5

Results of dictator game

Answer 5

• people give something - suggesting something about human generosity

Question 6

How is the dictator game similar to charitable giving?

Answer 6

When giving to charity
You don’t know the recipient of your giving.
For the most part, no one will know if, or how much you gave.

Question 7

what norms were used to increase charitable giving in the sweden study?

Answer 7

Using descriptive social norms to increase charitable giving: The power of local norms

Question 8

what were the different messages giving to sweedish PP to assess charitable giving?

Answer 8

Control condition message
Global Descriptive Norm message
Local Descriptive Norm message

Question 9

results of sweedish study

Answer 9

Donation rates were higher in the two Descriptive Norm Conditions
Shows how you can study generosity, and social norms
But a laboratory study would allow you more control:
Participants aren’t totally anonymous.
The social information is a bit weak.

Question 10

how can know if dictator game meausres genorisity in the real world?

Answer 10

make them do lab and compare to real world

Question 11

controlled dictator study

Answer 11

Study conducted in a room adjacent to a University common space.
Participants received money as part of participation, which was given to them as notes and coins.
After participating, participants exited by walking by a table where charitable donations were being solicited.

Question 12

classic distractor game finding compared to controlled study

Answer 12

The amount given in the Dictator Game correlated significantly with the amount given to charity

Question 13

Recipient is a Charity, instead of an anonymous peer, finding

Answer 13

The correlation between Dictator Game and charitable giving was similar
Implies that any differences between generosity in a laboratory study and in charitable giving doesn’t have to do with the recipient

Question 14

Recipient is a Charity, and money is earned rather than acquired for free

Answer 14

The correlation between Dictator Game and charitable giving was much higher
Implies that differences between generosity in a laboratory study and in charitable giving may have a lot to do with how the money is acquired

Question 15

limitations of controlled distractor study?

Answer 15

Link depends to some degree on how similar the lab and real-world context is.
What about when the contexts are less similar?

Question 16

letter dictator study procedure

Answer 16

Participants played a standard Dictator Game, and left a postal address if they wanted to participate in more studies.
Participants later received a letter which was “mis-directed”, in that it was clearly designed to appear as though it was intended for someone else.
Participants could either return the letter, or keep the money.

Question 17

how many returned the letter - they gave nothing in dictator game?

Answer 17

Only 50% returned the letter

Question 18

Participants who gave something in the DG

Answer 18

Nearly 72% returned the letter

Question 19

Descriptive Norms

Answer 19

Beliefs about which behaviours are typically performed, by members of a specific reference group.

Question 20

Injunctive Norms

Answer 20

Beliefs about what behaviors are approved or disapproved by others.
“Second-order” Personal Norms: your beliefs about other people’s personal norms

Question 21

why is studying norms hard?

Answer 21

To study a social norm in action it is important to observe behaviour
But, usually, you can’t just wait around to observe behaviour!

Question 22

how can experiments measure norms?

Answer 22

But, an experiment can overcome this problem!
In an experiment:
You put people in new situations, different from what they normally experience
And then observe how this changes their behavior

Question 23

trust game

Answer 23

• extension of dictator game
• “Truster” (subject) has £100, Recipient has £0
• “Truster” can give any amount to Recipient, x4
• Recipient can give any amount back to “Truster”

Question 24

what can we used the trust game to research?

Answer 24

Do people give more when they see that other people are giving?
More specifically, when they believe that other people are giving?
i.e. do Descriptive Norms change giving?

Question 25

Fetchenhauer and Dunning (2010) study with 56 Ps procedure

Answer 25

Played with 56 different Recipients For each Recipient, they viewed a video of the person saying “hi” Trusters (subjects) had to: Decide whether to give their £7.50 to each of the 56 Recipients Judge whether each Recipient would decide to return money to them Guess the overall percentage of Recipients who returned money

Question 26

experimental vs control condition in truster study

Answer 26

Control Condition Trusters were NOT told whether each Recipient returned money to them Experimental Condition After deciding whether or not to trust/give, Trusters were told whether each Recipient returned money to then

Question 27

before playing the game how much did trusters guess that recipients would return money

Answer 27

Before playing the game, Trusters guessed that 52.1% of Recipients would return money Actually, it was 80.4% of Recipients

Question 28

after the game in the experimental condition how much did trusters guess would return money

Answer 28

Experimental Condition Trusters guessed that 79.1% of Recipients returned money - after they had been told people were trust worthy

Question 29

did trusters earn more in exp and control condition

Answer 29

exp - 7.67 trusters share with recipents more - 71% vs 56%

Question 30

truster game for injunctive norms

Answer 30

Trusters had to decide: Whether to give to the Recipient (multiplied x 3) Recipients had to decide: Whether to give any amount BACK to the Truster

Question 31

phase 4 of injunctive social norm truster game - role of punisher

Answer 31

Another player, the Punisher Can pay money to REDUCE how much money the Recipient gets I.e., they can SANCTION the Recipient for being selfish

Question 32

when does punishing change behaviour?

Answer 32

If Recipients believe that others approve of giving, and will punish (sanction) them for not giving

Question 33

If Recipients give more when there is a Punisher

Answer 33

Then, giving is based on their beliefs that others think they should give I.e. Injunctive Norms

Question 34

Recipient’s tendency to give( dependent on punisher):

Answer 34

Was influenced by what they thought the Punisher approved of Not just what they personally approved of I.e. Personal Norms

Question 35

was truster influenced by punisher?

Answer 35

Trusters’ tendency to give Was ALSO influenced by what they thought the Punisher approved of Even though the Punisher couldn’t punish them, personally Drives home that what matters is what the participants believe that other people approve of And what they believe other people will do when they disapprove

Question 36

did their have to be a punishment for the truster to give more money

Answer 36

no