4 ms·

Am I understanding this correctly? The study gave each participant 10 credits and then said they could keep them or give them away and at the end, those credits

by tkahn6 16y ago

Am I understanding this correctly? The study gave each participant 10 credits and then said they could keep them or give them away and at the end, those credits would be converted into real money. Uh, why would anyone give away credits? It's a totally zero-sum game. The only way you can 'win' if is someone else is foolish enough to give you their credits.

derefr 16y ago
There's definitely something missing from the description of the experiment. It sounds like the first half of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game. The second half—informing the player that their hypothetical "anonymous partner" would get to decide whether both, or neither, of them got the money—provides the incentive for the player to cooperate. Selfishness could then be gauged by how often players still choose "unfair" splits despite the chance of rejection. If this is what the experiment was, though, I would question their methodology a bit; an important part of the Ultimatum game is that both partners have to think of one another as human—and therefore capable of irrationality. The partner anonymity in their experimental set-up creates (mental) distance between the partners, which encourages a more rational cost-benefit analysis, vs. the immediate "I should punish you for giving me such a bad deal" reaction you have to a real person. If the players realize this, they will benefit by acting more selfishly, because they can rely on their partner to not see them as "human enough" to be worth punishing.
- gyardley 16y ago
  This is a related but different experiment called the Dictator Game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator_game
pwim 16y ago
I think that was the point - to simulate donations to charity, where likewise you don't get anything for giving them away.
TGJ 16y ago
You also 'win' if you give away your money and realize that you never had anything to begin with and help other people instead of lining your own pockets. You win emotional value instead of physical value.

by tkahn6 16y ago

derefr 16y ago

There's definitely something missing from the description of the experiment. It sounds like the first half of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game. The second half—informing the player that their hypothetical "anonymous partner" would get to decide whether both, or neither, of them got the money—provides the incentive for the player to cooperate. Selfishness could then be gauged by how often players still choose "unfair" splits despite the chance of rejection. If this is what the experiment was, though, I would question their methodology a bit; an important part of the Ultimatum game is that both partners have to think of one another as human—and therefore capable of irrationality. The partner anonymity in their experimental set-up creates (mental) distance between the partners, which encourages a more rational cost-benefit analysis, vs. the immediate "I should punish you for giving me such a bad deal" reaction you have to a real person. If the players realize this, they will benefit by acting more selfishly, because they can rely on their partner to not see them as "human enough" to be worth punishing.

gyardley 16y ago
This is a related but different experiment called the Dictator Game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator_game

pwim 16y ago

I think that was the point - to simulate donations to charity, where likewise you don't get anything for giving them away.

TGJ 16y ago

You also 'win' if you give away your money and realize that you never had anything to begin with and help other people instead of lining your own pockets. You win emotional value instead of physical value.