This article attempts to explain the behaviour observed in the dictator game without explicitly assuming a utility function. Alternatively, I consider the repre- sentative behaviour of a society composed of heterogeneous individuals in terms of altruism and self-interest. Based on these two principles, I present an allocation that aggregates the society's preferences. The result depends crucially on the value of the resource under dispute for the dictator. Even if the value of the resource is extremely important for the dictator, the dictator cannot justify a share of the resource larger than 3/4 of the total. An allocation proposing more than this share of the resource cannot reach social consensus. On the other extreme, if the value of the resource is sufficiently unimportant for the society, an equal split of the resource emerges in the limit.
AdlerM. (2016). Aggregating moral preferences. Economics and Philosophy, 32(2), 283321.
2.
AguiarF.Bra.nas-GarzaP.MillerL. (2008). Moral distance in dictator games.Judgment and Decision Making3(4), 344
3.
AndreoniJ.MillerJ. (2002). Giving according to GARP: An experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70(2), 737.753.
4.
BaronJ. (2000). Thinking and deciding. Cambridge, MA: University Press.
5.
BeersmaB.De DreuC. K. (1999). Negotiation processes and outcomes in prosocially and egoistically motivated groups. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(4), 385402.
6.
BicchieriC.XiaoE. (2009). Do the right thing: But only if others do so. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22(2), 191208.
7.
BoltonG. E.&OckenfelsA. (2000). ERC:Atheory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review, 90(1), 166193.
8.
Branas-GarzaP., Cobo-Reyes,R.EspinosaM. P.Jim¢¥enezN.Kov¢¥a¢§rikJ., PontiG (2010). Altruism and social integration. Games and Economic Behavior, 69(2), 249257.
9.
CamererC. (2003). Behavioral game theory. Princeton, NJ: University Press.
10.
CharnessG.RabinM. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 817869.
11.
DalBo. P.FrechetteG. R. (2018). On the determinants of cooperation in infinitely repeated games: Asurvey. Journal of Economic Literature, 56(1), 60114.
12.
DalbertC. (1999). The world is more just for me than generally: About the personal belief in a just world scale¡¯s validity. Social Justice Research, 12(2), 7998.
13.
DanaJ.CainD. M.DawesR. M. (2006). What you dont know wont hurt me: Costly but quiet) exit in dictator games. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(2), 193.201.
14.
DreberA.FunderbergD.RandD. G. (2014). Who cooperates in repeated games: The role of altruism, inequity aversion, and demographics. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 98(2), 41.55.
15.
DuvergerM. (1954). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state. New York, NY: Wiley.
16.
EngelC. (2011). Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics, 14(4), 583610.
17.
FeddersenT. (2008). Strategic voting. In DurlaufS.BlumeL. (Eds.), The new Palgrave dictionary of economics. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
FehrE.SchmidtK. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817868.
19.
FrohlichN.OppenheimerO. (2001). Choosing from a moral point of view. Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, 12(2), 89115.
20.
G¡§achterS.HerrmannB. (2009). Reciprocity, culture and human cooperation: Previous insights and a new cross-cultural experiment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1518), 791806.
21.
G¡§uthW.LevatiM.PlonerM. (2012). An experimental study of the generosity game. Theory and Decision, 72(1), 5163.
22.
HoffmanM. (2011). Does higher income make you more altruistic? Evidence from the holocaust. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(3), 876887.
23.
KahnemanD.KnetschJ.&ThalerR. (1986). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. The Journal of Business, 59(4), S285–S300.
24.
KimA. (2014). The curious case of self-interest: Inconsistent effects and ambivalence toward a widely accepted construct. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 44(1), 99–122.
25.
KonowJ. (2003). Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), 1188–1239.
26.
KonowJ. (2005). Blind spots: The effects of information and stakes on fairness bias and dispersion. Social Justice Research, 18(4), 349–390.
27.
K¨oszegiB.RabinM. (2006). A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1133–1165.
28.
LevittS.ListJ. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 153–174.
29.
ListC.PolakB. (2010). Introduction to judgment aggregation. Journal of Economic Theory, 145(2), 441–466.
30.
Os´orioA. (2017). A sequential allocation problem: The asymptotic distribution of resources. Group Decision and Negotiation, 26(2), 357–377.
31.
RandD.NowakM. (2013). Human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 413–425.
32.
Rodriguez-LaraI.Moreno-GarridoL. (2012). Self-interest and fairness: Self-serving choices of justice principles. Experimental Economics, 15(1), 158–175.
33.
SeftonM. (1992). Incentives in simple bargaining games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 13(2), 263–276.
34.
ThomsonW. (2001). On the axiomatic method and its recent applications to game theory and resource allocation. Social Choice and Welfare, 18(2), 327–387
