Prevolio
Game theoryClassroom · multi-user

Dictator Game — Fairness Without Strategy

Paired up, a Dictator alone splits 100 points and the Recipient simply receives — no accept or reject. With zero strategic pressure, whatever is given is pure generosity.

You’ll learn: See that giving persists even when the recipient cannot reject — isolating genuine generosity from the fear of rejection that drives the Ultimatum Game.

Teacher guide

Students will learn to

  • Experience deciding how to split a pot when the other side has no say at all.
  • Contrast the self-interested prediction (give nothing) with what real people do.
  • Separate fairness from strategy by comparing gifts here with Ultimatum offers, where rejection is possible.

Before the session — ask

  • If you could keep an entire 100 points and the other person could not object, how much would you hand over?
  • Why might someone give anything at all when there is no risk of the offer being rejected?

After the session — discuss

  • What was the most common amount given, and how many dictators kept everything?
  • How do gifts here compare with offers in the Ultimatum Game — where the responder can reject?
  • What does giving without any strategic pressure tell us about fairness and altruism?

Timing

  • Briefing & pairing3–5 min
  • Give3–5 min
  • Reveal & discussion8–10 min

Run it with your class

Students join with a code or QR — no account needed. Teachers start a session from the dashboard.

Join with a codeFor teachers

What is the dictator game?

The dictator game is one of the simplest experiments in economics, designed to isolate genuine generosity. One player, the Dictator, is given a sum — say 100 points — and simply decides how much to hand to a second player, the Recipient, who has no say at all: they cannot accept, reject, or respond in any way. Because the Recipient is powerless, standard self-interest predicts a stark result: the Dictator should keep everything, since giving buys nothing in return. Yet in real experiments people routinely give a meaningful share away. That matters because it strips out strategy. In games where the other side can retaliate, giving might just be self-protection; here there is no such pressure, so whatever is given reflects other-regarding preferences — caring about the other person's outcome, fairness norms, or the 'warm glow' of giving itself. The dictator game is the clean baseline economists use to separate genuine altruism from the strategic generosity seen in games like the ultimatum game, where the fear of rejection, not kindness, may be doing the work.

How the simulation shows it

Paired up, one player splits 100 points and the other simply receives — no acceptance or rejection. Playing the Dictator yourself, with nothing to gain from giving, makes the point vivid: any amount you hand over is pure generosity, not strategy, which is exactly what the game is built to measure.

Common misconceptions

Frequently asked questions

What is the dictator game?
An experiment where one player freely decides how to split a sum with a second player who cannot respond at all. With no strategic pressure, whatever is given measures pure generosity.
What does standard self-interest predict?
That the Dictator keeps everything, since the Recipient can't reject or reciprocate, so giving yields no material return. Real behaviour departs sharply from this.
Why do people give anyway?
Because of other-regarding preferences: caring about the other's outcome, fairness norms, or the 'warm glow' of giving. These motives persist even with nothing to gain.
How is it different from the ultimatum game?
In the ultimatum game the recipient can reject and leave both with nothing, so offers may be strategic. The dictator game removes that power, isolating genuine generosity.
What is warm-glow giving?
The idea that people gain satisfaction from the act of giving itself, independent of the recipient's benefit — one explanation for why Dictators give when strategy says they shouldn't.