Shifting the reward for kind delegation

2020-06-22

2020-07-31

Rewarding behaviors of recipients to dictators with fair decisions and to dictators who delegate to a fair agent

The game takes the format of a dictator game, with an option or the dictator to delegation the decision to another agent, and the option for the recipient to reward or punish the dictator and/or the delegate.

The game follows the design of the delegated dictator game of Bartling and Fischbacher (2012). Four types of players are matched together: a dictator, a potential delegate, and two recipients. The dictator chooses between two options: a) a fair option that allocates 5 points for each player, and b) an unfair option that allocates 9 points each to the dictator and the delegate and 1 point each to the two
receivers.

The dictator has the option to delegate the decision to the delegate. Each receiver can reward the dictator and the delegate. Each receiver allocates rewarding a total of up to 7 rewarding points to the principal and the delegate.

The game is played in strategy method. The dictator decides to either choose between the two allocations him/herself, or to delegate the decision. The delegate needs to make the allocation decision before knowing whether the dictator has chosen to delegate or not. Both receivers assigns rewarding points for all four possible scenarios. The allocation is implemented according to the choice of the matched dictator and/or delegate. The rewarding points of one of the two receivers is randomly selected by a computerized die row to be implemented.

Treatments:
Jun 22
- Dictator game with delegation but no reward
- Dictator game with no delegation but with reward
- Dictator game with delegation and reward
- Dictator game with delegation and punishment

After data collection from the delegation and reward treatment finishes:
- Dictator game with delegation and reward, but the dictator can only delegate to a randomized die row whose probability distribution equal to the delegate's behaviors from the delegation and reward treatment. (Thus data collection for this treatment can only start after data collection from the delegation and reward treatment finishes.)
- Dictator game with delegation and reward, but the dictator can only choose the unfair allocation if he/she chooses not to delegate

The experiment will be run on Prolific with the following pre-screening restrictions:
- Students
- Completed degree is high school or above
- US residents
- Prolific approval rate at least 90%
- Age: 18-30

Randomization by computer

Individual

No

1200 individuals

1200 individuals

200 individuals per treatment

Evidence has shown that blame for a “bad” decision can be shifted by delegating the decision to someone else. We conduct experiments using a four-player delegated dictator game to examine whether the reverse is also true: does one receive credit for taking a “good” decision as compared to delegating the decision to someone else? Our results indicate that the answer is affirmative. A person receives higher rewards when she makes a fair decision herself than when a delegate does. This indicates that responsibility attribution is a double-edged sword that applies to both bad and good outcomes.

Argenton, C., Potters, J., & Yang, Y. (2023). Receiving credit: On delegation and responsibility. European Economic Review, 158, 104522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2023.104522

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2023.104522