Effects of double-anonymity on pro- and anti-social behavior: Experimental evidence from a lab in the field

Abstract

This paper examines whether different degrees of subject-experimenter anonymity influence pro- and anti-social behavior in lab-in-the-field experiments. To do this, a Dictator Game (DG) and a Joy-of-Destruction Mini-Game (JoD) were conducted with 480 subjects in rural Namibia. In addition to a strict double-anonymous treatment two single-anonymous treatments are introduced. One of them involves the disclosure of decisions directly to the experimenter. Thereby, it is possible to disentangle the effect of pure double-anonymity from the procedure of the decision-making. The presented results carry relevant implications for a methodologically sound implementation of lab-in-the-field experiments. Both in the DG and JoD, strict double-anonymous procedures do not produce significantly different behavior than under single-anonymity. Whether revealing decisions personally to the experimenter influences individual behavior cannot be consistently answered with the obtained results. The personal disclosure leads to significantly more pro-social and less anti-social behavior in one out of two treatment comparisons. From a conservative perspective, researchers are however advised to assure sufficient privacy for subjects from experimenters during the decision-making process.