השוואת שיטות
סקרו את השיטות שבחרתם זו לצד זו; שורות שבהן יש הבדל מודגשות.
| Dictator Game× | משחק האולטימטום× | |
|---|---|---|
| תחום | פסיכולוגיה | פסיכולוגיה |
| משפחה | Hypothesis test | Hypothesis test |
| שנת המקור≠ | 1994 | 1982 |
| הוגה השיטה≠ | Robert Forsythe and colleagues | Werner Güth, Rolf Schmittberger, and Bernd Schwarze |
| סוג≠ | Allocation task | Behavioral economics task |
| מקור מכונן≠ | Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6(3), 347-369. DOI ↗ | Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 367-388. DOI ↗ |
| כינויים | Allocation Game, Distribution Task | Ultimatum Bargaining, Division Game |
| קשורות | 1 | 1 |
| תקציר≠ | The Dictator Game is a simple economic decision task measuring generosity and prosocial behavior. One player (dictator) receives money and unilaterally decides how to allocate it between themselves and an anonymous second player (recipient). The recipient cannot reject the offer; they simply receive what the dictator gives. Unlike the Ultimatum Game, the dictator faces no punishment for selfishness. Thus, the Dictator Game reveals baseline generosity without strategic calculation, revealing intrinsic prosocial preferences. | The Ultimatum Game is a two-player economic decision-making task that reveals preferences for fairness and social norms. One player (proposer) receives money and offers a portion to a second player (responder). The responder accepts or rejects the offer; if accepted, both receive their share; if rejected, both receive nothing. Economic theory predicts responders should accept any positive offer (better than zero), yet responders often reject unfair offers. This gap between predictions and behavior reveals that fairness concerns, equity sensitivity, and social punishment shape economic decisions. |
| ScholarGateמערך נתונים ↗ |
|
|