Hostname: page-component-669899f699-cf6xr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T20:12:06.673Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking games: a meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Alexandre Flage Open the ORCID record for Alexandre Flage [Opens in a new window]
Alexandre Flage*
Affiliation:
Université de Lorraine, Université de Strasbourg, CNRS, 13 Place Carnot C.O, 54000 Nancy, BETA, France
*
alexandre.flage@univ-lorraine.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents the first meta-analysis of the ‘Taking Game,’ a variant of the Dictator Game where participants take money from recipients instead of giving. Upon analyzing data from 39 experiments, which include 123 effect sizes and 7262 offers made by dictators, we discovered a significant framing effect: dictators are more generous in the Taking Game than in the Dictator Game (Cohen's d = 0.26, p < 0.0001), leaving approximately 35.5 percent of the stakes to recipients in the former as opposed to 27.5 percent in the latter. The difference is higher when the participants have earned their endowment before sharing or when the recipient is a charity. Consistent with the standard literature on giving, we also find that participants take less from a charity than from a standard recipient, take less when payoffs are hypothetical, or when recipients have previously earned their endowment. We also find that women (non-students) take less than men (students). Finally, it appears that participants from non-OECD countries leave more money to recipients than participants from OECD countries.

Keywords

Taking GameDictator GameFraming effectsMeta-analysisMultiple regression

JEL classification

D64: Altruism • Philanthropy • Intergenerational Transfers C13: Estimation: General C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior
Type
Original Paper
Information
Journal of the Economic Science Association , Volume 10 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Behavioral and Experimental Economics for Innovative Policy-Making (Articles 1 to 3) , December 2024 , pp. 255 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Economic Science Association 2024.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alt, M, Gallier, C, Schlüter, A, Nelson, K, Anggraini, E. (2018). Giving to versus taking from in-and out-group members. Games, 9, 3, 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J, Vesterlund, L. (2001). Which is the fair sex? Gender differences in altruism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 1, 293–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banker, S, Ainsworth, SE, Baumeister, RF, Ariely, D, Vohs, KD. (2017). The sticky anchor hypothesis: Ego depletion increases susceptibility to situational cues. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30, 5, 1027–1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardsley, N. (2008). Dictator game giving: Altruism or artefact?. Experimental Economics, 11, 2, 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, J. (1995). Blind justice: Fairness to groups and the do-no-harm principle. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8, 2, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilén, D, Dreber, A, Johannesson, M. (2021). Are women more generous than men? A meta-analysis. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 7, 1, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, PM. (1964). Exchange and power in social life, Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Bolton, GE, Katok, E. (1995). An experimental test for gender differences in beneficent behavior. Economics Letters, 48, 3–4, 287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, DL, Ensor, J, Riley, RD. (2017). Meta-analysis using individual participant data: One-stage and two-stage approaches, and why they may differ. Statistics in Medicine, 36, 5, 855–875.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cappelen, AW, Nielsen, UH, Sørensen, EØ, Tungodden, B, Tyran, JR. (2013). Give and take in dictator games. Economics Letters, 118, 2, 280–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capraro, V, Vanzo, A. (2019). The power of moral words: Loaded language generates framing effects in the extreme dictator game. Judgment and Decision Making, 14, 3, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, D, Chen, R, Krupka, E. (2019). Rhetoric matters: A social norms explanation for the anomaly of framing. Games and Economic Behavior, 116, 158–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chowdhury, SM, Jeon, JY, Saha, B. (2014). Eye-image in experiments: Social cue or experimenter demand effect?, Norwich, UKSchool of Economics, University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
Chowdhury, SM, Jeon, JY, Saha, B. (2017). Gender differences in the giving and taking variants of the dictator game. Southern Economic Journal, 84, 2, 474–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clot, S, Grolleau, G, Ibanez, L. (2018). Moral self-licencing and social dilemmas: An experimental analysis from a taking game in Madagascar. Applied Economics, 50, 27, 2980–2991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clot, S., Grolleau, G., & Ibanez, L. (2018b). What did you do before? Moral (in) consistency in pro-environmental choice. hal-01954925.Google Scholar
Cochard, F, Le Gallo, J, Georgantzis, N, Tisserand, JC. (2021). Social preferences across different populations: Meta-analyses on the ultimatum game and dictator game. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 90, 101613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, JC, List, JA, Price, M, Sadiraj, V, Samek, A. (2016). Moral costs and rational choice: Theory and experimental evidence, National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, JC, Servátka, M, Vadovič, R. (2017). Status quo effects in fairness games: Reciprocal responses to acts of commission versus acts of omission. Experimental Economics, 20, 1, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DerSimonian, R, Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7, 3, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doñate-Buendía, A, García-Gallego, A, Petrović, M. (2022). Gender and other moderators of giving in the dictator game: A meta-analysis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 198, 280–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreber, A, Ellingsen, T, Johannesson, M, Rand, DG. (2013). Do people care about social context? Framing effects in dictator games. Experimental Economics, 16, 3, 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duval, S, Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 2, 455–463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eckel, CC, Grossman, PJ. (1998). Are women less selfish than men?: Evidence from dictator experiments. The Economic Journal, 108, 448, 726–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egger, M, Smith, GD, Schneider, M, Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315, 7109, 629–634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eichenberger, R, Oberholzer-Gee, F. (1998). Rational moralists: The role of fairness in democratic economic politics. Public Choice, 94, 1, 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emerson, RM. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 1, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics, 14, 4, 583–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faure, G. (2020, novembre 28).( Comment l’arrondi en caisse dope la générosité des Français. Le Monde, https://www.lemonde.fr/m-perso/article/2020/11/28/comment-l-arrondi-en-caisse-dope-la-generosite-des-francais_6061437_4497916.htmlGoogle Scholar
Fromell, H, Nosenzo, D, Owens, T. (2020). Altruism, fast and slow? Evidence from a meta-analysis and a new experiment. Experimental Economics, 23, 4, 979–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gault, BA, Sabini, J. (2000). The roles of empathy, anger, and gender in predicting attitudes toward punitive, reparative, and preventative public policies. Cognition & Emotion, 14, 4, 495–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goerg, SJ, Rand, D, Walkowitz, G. (2020). Framing effects in the prisoner's dilemma but not in the dictator game. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 6, 1, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1978). Effects of reward value and retaliative power on allocation decisions: Justice, generosity, or greed?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 4, 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greig, F. (2010). Gender and the social costs of claiming value: An experimental approach. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76, 3, 549–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grolleau, G, Kocher, MG, Sutan, A. (2016). Cheating and loss aversion: Do people cheat more to avoid a loss?. Management Science, 62, 12, 3428–3438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, PJ, Eckel, CC. (2015). Giving versus taking for a cause. Economics Letters, 132, 28–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hair, JF, Anderson, RE, Tatham, RL, Black, WC. (1998). Multivariate data analysis prentice hall, Upper Saddle RiverNew Jessery 730.Google Scholar
Halladay, B, Landsman, R. (2020). Shame on Me: Emotions and Gender Differences in Taking with Earned Endowments. SSRN, 10.2139/ssrn.3729536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbord, RM, Higgins, JP. (2008). Meta-Regression in Stata. The Stata Journal, 8, 4, 493–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauge, KE, Brekke, KA, Johansson, LO, Johansson-Stenman, O, Svedsäter, H. (2016). Keeping others in our mind or in our heart? Distribution games under cognitive load. Experimental Economics, 19, 3, 562–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinrich, T, Weimann, J. (2013). A note on reciprocity and modified dictator games. Economics Letters, 121, 2, 202–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakiela, P. (2013). Equity vs efficiency vs self-interest: on the use of dictator games to measure distributional preferences. Experimental Economics, 16, 2, 208–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jakiela, P. (2015). How fair shares compare: Experimental evidence from two cultures. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 118, 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, EJ, Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives?. Science, 302, 5649, 1338–1339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D, Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econom J Econom Soc, 47, 2, 263–291.Google Scholar
Kench, BT, Niman, NB. (2010). Of altruists and thieves. Eastern Economic Journal, 36, 3, 317–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keser, C, Späth, M. (2021). Charitable giving: Framing and the role of information. SSRN, 10.2139/ssrn.3884820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettner, S. E., & Ceccato, S. (2014). Framing matters in gender-paired dictator games (No. 557). Discussion Paper Series.Google Scholar
Kettner, SE, Waichman, I. (2016). Old age and prosocial behavior: Social preferences or experimental confounds?. Journal of Economic Psychology, 53, 118–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keysar, B, Converse, BA, Wang, J, Epley, N. (2008). Reciprocity is not give and take: Asymmetric reciprocity to positive and negative acts. Psychological Science, 19, 12, 1280–1286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korenok, O, Millner, EL, Razzolini, L. (2014). Taking, giving, and impure altruism in dictator games. Experimental Economics, 17, 3, 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korenok, O, Millner, E, Razzolini, L. (2017). Feelings of ownership in dictator games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 61, 145–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korenok, O, Millner, EL, Razzolini, L. (2018). Taking aversion. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 150, 397–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krupka, EL, Weber, RA. (2013). Identifying social norms using coordination games: Why does dictator game sharing vary?. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11, 3, 495–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larney, A, Rotella, A, Barclay, P. (2019). Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibbrandt, A, Maitra, P, Neelim, A. (2015). On the redistribution of wealth in a developing country: Experimental evidence on stake and framing effects. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 118, 360–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennon, R, Eisenberg, N. (1987). Gender and age differences in empathy and sympathy. Empathy and its development, Cambridge University Press 195–217.Google Scholar
Levitt, SD, List, JA. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world?. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 2, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, JA. (2007). On the interpretation of giving in dictator games. Journal of Political Economy, 115, 3, 482–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Losecaat Vermeer, AB, Boksem, MA, Sanfey, AG. (2020). Third-party decision-making under risk as a function of prior gains and losses. Journal of Economic Psychology, 77, 102206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowes, S, Montero, E. (2021). Concessions, Violence, and Indirect Rule: Evidence from the Congo Free State. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 136, 4, 2047–2091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macaskill, A, Maltby, J, Day, L. (2002). Forgiveness of self and others and emotional empathy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 5, 663–665.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mestre, MV, Samper, P, Frías, MD, Tur, AM. (2009). Are women more empathetic than men? A longitudinal study in adolescence. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12, 1, 76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molina, I., Castillo, K., & Puzon, K. (2021). Ethnic disparity in altruism towards reforestation: A social preference experiment in Mindoro, Philippines. Center for Environmental and Resource Economics, CERE, Ethnic disparity in altruism towards reforestation: A social preference experiment in Mindoro, Philippines (March 10, 2021).Google Scholar
Oxoby, RJ, Spraggon, J. (2008). Mine and yours: Property rights in dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 65, 3–4, 703–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poppe, M, Valkenberg, H. (2003). Effects of gain versus loss and certain versus probable outcomes on social value orientations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 3, 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 3, 638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royzman, EB, Baron, J. (2002). The preference for indirect harm. Social Justice Research, 15, 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, W, Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1, 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schildberg-Hörisch, H, Strassmair, C. (2012). An experimental test of the deterrence hypothesis. The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 28, 3, 447–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simonsohn, U, Nelson, LD, Simmons, JP. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 2, 534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. (2015). On the nature of pessimism in taking and giving games. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 54, 50–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, TD, Doucouliagos, H. (2012). Meta-regression analysis in economics and business, Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, TD, Doucouliagos, H. (2015). Neither fixed nor random: Weighted least squares meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 34, 13, 2116–2127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanley, TD, Doucouliagos, H. (2017). Neither fixed nor random: Weighted least squares meta-regression. Research Synthesis Methods, 8, 1, 19–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suvoy, R. (2003). The effects of give and take framing in a dictator game (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon).Google Scholar
Swope, K, Cadigan, J, Schmitt, P, Shupp, R. (2008). Social position and distributive justice: Experimental evidence. Southern Economic Journal, 74, 3, 811–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, RH, Sunstein, CR. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health. Wealth, and Happiness, 6, 14–38.Google Scholar
Tisserand, JC, Cochard, F, Le Gallo, J. (2015). Altruistic or strategic considerations: A meta-analysis on the ultimatum and dictator games, CRESE, Université de Franche-Comté.Google Scholar
Toussaint, L, Webb, JR. (2005). Gender differences in the relationship between empathy and forgiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 6, 673–685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Umer, H. (2023). Effectiveness of random payment in Experiments: A meta-Analysis of dictator games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 96, 102608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umer, H, Kurosaki, T, Iwasaki, I. (2022). Unearned Endowment and Charity Recipient Lead to Higher Donations: A Meta-Analysis of the Dictator Game Lab Experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 97, 101827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, E, Vermunt, R. (2000). Strategy and fairness in social decision making: Sometimes it pays to be powerless. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 1, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Beest, I, Wilke, H, Van Dijk, E. (2003). The excluded player in coalition formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 2, 237–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Beest, I, Van Dijk, E, De Dreu, CK, Wilke, HA. (2005). Do-no-harm in coalition formation: Why losses inhibit exclusion and promote fairness cognitions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 6, 609–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, MS, Roelofs, MR. (2011). Heterogeneous preferences for altruism: Gender and personality, social status, giving and taking. Experimental Economics, 14, 4, 490–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willer, R, Wimer, C, Owens, LA. (2015). What drives the gender gap in charitable giving? Lower empathy leads men to give less to poverty relief. Social Science Research, 52, 83–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, L, Ortmann, A. (2014). The effects of the take-option in dictator-game experiments: A comment on Engel's (2011) meta-study. Experimental Economics, 17, 3, 414–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, K, Kashima, Y, Smillie, LD. (2018). From windfall sharing to property ownership: Prosocial personality traits in giving and taking dictator games. Games, 9, 2, 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zizzo, DJ. (2010). Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 13, 1, 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Flage supplementary material

Flage supplementary material
Download Flage supplementary material(File)
File 37.5 KB