Hostname: page-component-5b777bbd6c-v47t2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-24T13:02:55.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Group polarization in the team dictator game reconsidered

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Wolfgang J. Luhan ,
Martin G. Kocher  and
Matthias Sutter
Wolfgang J. Luhan
Affiliation:
Center for Social Science Methodology, University of Oldenburg, Ammerlaender Heerstrasse 114-118, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany
Martin G. Kocher*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, CREED, University of Amsterdam, Roetersstraat 11, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands Department of Public Finance, University of Innsbruck, Universitaetsstrasse 15/4, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
Matthias Sutter
Affiliation:
Department of Public Finance, University of Innsbruck, Universitaetsstrasse 15/4, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria Department of Economics, University of Göteborg, P.O. Box 640, 40530 Göteborg, Sweden
*
e-mail: martin.kocher@uibk.ac.at
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While most papers on team decision-making find that teams behave more selfishly, less trustingly and less altruistically than individuals, Cason and Mui (1997) report that teams are more altruistic than individuals in a dictator game. Using a within-subjects design we re-examine group polarization by letting subjects make individual as well as team decisions in an experimental dictator game. In our experiment teams are more selfish than individuals, and the most selfish team member has the strongest influence on team decisions. Various explanations for the different findings in Cason and Mui (1997) and in our paper are discussed.

Keywords

ExperimentDictator gameTeam behaviorSocial preferences

JEL classification

C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior D70: General C92: Laboratory, Group Behavior C72: Noncooperative Games
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 26 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Economic Science Association 2007

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

Andreoni, J., & Petrie, R. (2004). Public goods experiments without confidentiality: a glimpse into fundraising. Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1605–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. S. (1999). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games: Comment. American Economic Review, 89, 335–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, G., & Yaniv, I. (1998). Individual and group behavior in the ultimatum game: are groups more ‘rational’ players? Experimental Economics, 1, 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, G., Kugler, T., & Ziegelmeyer, A. (2004). Individual and group decisions in the centipede game: are groups more ‘rational’ players? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 599–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosman, R., & van Winden, F. (2002). Emotional hazard in a power-to-take experiment. Economic Journal, 112, 147–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cason, T., & Mui, V.-L. (1997). A laboratory study of group polarization in the team dictator game. Economic Journal, 107, 1465–1483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D. J., & Kagel, J. H. (2005). Are two heads better than one? Team versus individual play in signaling games. American Economic Review, 95, 477–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. C. (2002). Trust, reciprocity, and other-regarding preferences: groups vs. individuals and males vs. females. In Zwick, R. & Rapoport, A. (Eds.), Advances in experimental business research (pp. 331–350). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. C., & Deck, C. A. (2006). When are women more generous than men? Economic Inquiry, 44, 587–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J. C., & Hayne, S. C. (2006). Barking up the right tree: Are small groups rational agents? Experimental Economics, 9, 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, D. D., & Harless, D. W. (1996). Group vs. individual performance in a price-searching experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. (1992). Some compelling intuitions about group consensus decisions, theoretical and empirical research and interpersonal aggregation phenomena: Selected examples 1950-1990. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufwenberg, M., & Muren, A. (2006). Gender composition in teams. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 61, 50–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eliaz, K., Ray, D., & Razin, R. (2006). Choice shifts in groups: A decision-theoretic basis. American Economic Review, 96, 1321–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for readymade economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J., Savin, N., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillet, J., Schram, A., & Sonnemans, J. (2007). The tragedy of the commons revisited: the importance of group decision-making (Working Paper). University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güth, W., Schmidt, C., & Sutter, M. (2007). Bargaining outside the lab: A newspaper experiment of a three-person ultimatum game. Economic Journal, 117, 449–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahnemann, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76, 728–741.Google Scholar
Kerr, N., MacCoun, R., & Kramer, G. (1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103, 687–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2005). The decision maker matters: individual versus group behavior in experimental beauty-contest games. Economic Journal, 115, 200–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2007). Individual versus group behavior and the role of the decision making procedure in gift-exchange experiments. Empirica, 34, 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kugler, T., Bornstein, G., Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. (2007, forthcoming). Trust between individuals and groups: groups are less trusting than individuals but just as trustworthy. Journal of Economic Psychology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, J., & Moreland, R. L. (1998). Small groups. In Fisher, G. & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, 4th edn., pp. 415–469). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maciejovsky, B., & Budescu, D. V. (2007). Collective induction without cooperation? Learning and knowledge transfer in cooperative groups and competitive auctions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 854–870.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rockenbach, B., Sadrieh, A., & Mathauschek, B. (2007). Teams take the better risks. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63, 412–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoner, J. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Unpublished master thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston.Google Scholar
Sutter, M. (2005). Are four heads better than two? An experimental beauty-contest game with teams of different size. Economics Letters, 88, 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutter, M. (2007). Are teams prone to myopic loss aversion? An experimental study on individual versus team investment behavior. Economics Letters, 97, 128–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutter, M., Kocher, M. G., & Strauß, S. (2006). Individuals and teams in UMTS-license auctions (Working Paper). University of Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Teger, A., & Pruitt, D. (1967). Components of group risk taking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 189–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildschut, T., Lodewijkx, H. F. M., & Insko, C. A. (2001). Toward a reconciliation of diverging perspectives on interindividual-intergroup discontinuity: the role of procedural interdependence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar