Chapter 3 of SuperFreakonomics, called “Unbelievable Stories About Apathy and Altruism,” takes a look at the research of John List (the Univ. of Chicago economist, not the notorious murderer of the same same — although the same chapter does cast a new light on a famous murder as well). List’s research challenges the prevailing wisdom on a few decades’ worth of lab experiments which seemed to prove that human beings are innately fair or even altruistic. Much of this research concerns a pair of lab games called Ultimatum and Dictator. If you want to see how altruistic or charitable you are in the context of these games, the time has come: here’s where you can download a free app that lets you join the fun. And here’s what it looks like:
and 
. You can also watch it on 
No android version?
No time! Anyway, I already know. Charity begins at home.
I wish those who seek cheap labor elsewhere would understand this concept and act on it. We need to wake up now to the real importance of “Made in America.” movement now
we are innately fair- just look at someone suffering
Or I can give real money to actual charities that help real people like I have been doing for many years.
Not sure why this is an app. It’s a rather large download for a file that essentially contains 4 short word problems with some fancy graphics and stats upon answering (not tied to any survey device either, sadly).
To the topic at hand, why would anyone give anything to another random player? In the negotiation example, I offered the person $1 (keeping $19) and I was told I was rejected. Is the other person rejecting me out of spite of my offer? His principles are worth more than a free dollar? Hm ok maybe… but still, kinda odd. I understand the purpose of trying to show the player that, hey, even though you could have more money, you need to consider that offering $15 increases your chance at getting cash by a lot so that is the better choice. But I don’t understand why the other party would turn down a free dollar.
In the remaining examples as dictator, it surprises me that people choose anything but taking the maximum amount. You do not know this other player and there are no negative consequences for taking (or positive consequences for giving). That other player will probably not use that money to your benefit as well as you can yourself. So why give any away? Sure there’s the concept of “being altruistic,” except for the fact that the other player may in fact be richer than you… what does giving money away accomplish?
I’m all in favor of people donating their money to charities that they decide are efficient and worthwhile. But donations to random charities is an inefficient use of personal resources. Much like the Seinfeld episode where George creates his own “charity”… if you just want to give your money away, I can tell you of a great charity that I know about….
This is a brilliant way of collecting research data! I would try to build apps for research data if I was in a doctoral program right now.
#5 Bobby G: “Is the other person rejecting me out of spite of my offer?”
It has to do with fairness. If we think we’re not being treated fairly, we tend to punish the person treating us unfairly, even if it means we lose something in the process. It’s to ensure that in the long run that people won’t cheat us–it teaches him a lesson, so that the next time, he’ll be more fair.
Even if the problem claims that this is a one-time thing, and there will be no further contact/gaming/etc, it’s very difficult for most people to think that way. Real life often has long-term consequences, and most human beings don’t have a switch turning knowledge off.
This sounds like a repeat of the Science 84 experiment? It’s a big prisoner’s dilemma with no iteration so that consequences cannot be enforced?
It may be fair to explain to readers to the difference between observed altruism and fairness under different game theoretic conditions. Equilibria. Hawks and doves.
Unless you’re not writing for readers who might read that far into the science.