Abstract

Social preference models emphasize that perceived intentions motivate reciprocity. However, laboratory tests of this theory typically manipulate perceived intentions through changes in wealth resulting from a sacrifice in pay by another. There is little evidence on whether reciprocity occurs in response to perceived intentions alone, independent of concurrent changes in pay and giver sacrifice (and any associated guilt from that sacrifice). This paper addresses this gap in the literature by implementing a modified dictator game where gifts to dictators are possible, but where gift transactions are also stochastically prevented by nature. This leads to instances of observed gift-giving intentions that yield no sacrifice or change in outcomes. In addition, this study uses both monetary and non-monetary gifts; previous studies typically use only monetary incentives, even though real-world applications of this literature often involve non-monetary incentives such as business or marketing gifts. The results show that on average, dictators reciprocated strongly to just the intention to give a gift, and they also reciprocated similarly to both monetary and non-monetary gifts. These results are consistent with intentions-based models of social preferences and with much of the marketing literature on business gifts.

Highlights

  • Social preference models propose that perceived intentions are a key driver of reciprocity [1,2].economics experiments have typically tested this by varying whether a change in outcome is attributed to another individual or to chance [3,4,5]

  • The main results in the paper will focus on subjects from just the CASSEL subject pool.7 mail

  • Results was run at Caltech SSEL (Social Science Experimental Laboratory) using the SSEL subject pool

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Economics experiments have typically tested this by varying whether a change in outcome is attributed to another individual or to chance [3,4,5]. In these games and in the related gift-exchange game [6,7,8], the initial giver must sacrifice from their own resources in order to show kindness and induce reciprocation. Since these gift items are predetermined, the exact items in this study are not chosen by the gift‐giver and reciprocity due to thoughtfulness or consideration in gift choice is theoretically irrelevant in this context

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.