Social Cognition
Dictator Game
Measure giving: participants split an amount between themselves and an anonymous person who has no say, scored by the share given.
1-3 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 771
- Evidence grade
- B
- Registered clinical studies
- 14
What it measures
Measures giving: the participant splits an amount between themselves and an anonymous person who has no say in the split.
Constructs
- Altruistic giving
- Social preferences
- Fairness
- Prosocial behavior
Research uses
- Behavioral economics research
- Social preference and fairness studies
- Social decision-making research in clinical groups
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The Dictator Game measures giving when nothing comes back. The participant splits an amount, 10 points as standard, between themselves and another person they will not meet. The other person has no say and gets whatever is given, so the amount given reflects the participant's own preference rather than a strategy.
More about the paradigm
The task follows the dictator game of Forsythe, Horowitz, Savin and Sefton (1994). Before deciding, the participant answers one question with feedback about an example split, drawn from the session's seed, to confirm who receives what. The amount is chosen on a bar and adjusted with two buttons. No amount is selected at the start, so the screen does not suggest a split. The standard task has one decision. Researchers can set the amount, the unit, up to 10 decisions with different people, and one instruction line that says either that the amounts are hypothetical (standard) or that the study pays.
Scores
- Share Given%
- Amount given as a proportion of the amount to split, averaged over decisions.
- Higher means more giving
- Amount Givenpoints
- Amount given, averaged over decisions, in the task's units (points as standard).
- Higher means more giving
- Gave Nothing%
- Share of decisions that gave nothing.
- Informational
- Equal Split%
- Share of decisions that gave exactly half.
- Informational
- Gave Everything%
- Share of decisions that gave the whole amount.
- Informational
- Comprehension Checkflag
- 1 when the question about the example split was answered correctly, 0 when not.
- 1 supports interpretation
Use and evidence
771 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, up 8% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 33 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 161 |
| 2024 | 159 |
| 2023 | 137 |
| 2022 | 162 |
| 2021 | 152 |
| 2020 | 124 |
| 2019 | 147 |
| 2018 | 163 |
| 2017 | 157 |
| 2016 | 126 |
| 2015 | 122 |
| 2014 | 120 |
| 2013 | 114 |
| 2012 | 94 |
| 2011 | 80 |
| 2010 | 85 |
| 2009 | 52 |
| 2008 | 57 |
| 2007 | 54 |
| 2006 | 22 |
| 2005 | 25 |
| 2004 | 15 |
| 2003 | 13 |
| 2002 | 4 |
| 2001 | 8 |
| 2000 | 9 |
Use grade B
300 to 999 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade B
At least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 8
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 92
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 14
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Decision
- Split 10 points between yourself and one anonymous person who has no say.
- Input
- A bar to tap or drag, with buttons that change the amount by 1. Confirm stays off until an amount is chosen.
- Start
- No amount is selected at the start, so the screen does not suggest a split.
- Check
- One question with feedback before the decision: how much the other person gets for an example split drawn from the session's seed.
- Decisions
- One (standard), or up to 10, each with a different person.
- Money
- Hypothetical by default; a setting changes the instruction line to say the study pays.
Forsythe and colleagues paid participants. This version uses hypothetical amounts unless the study pays; in Engel's (2011) meta-study, hypothetical and paid games did not differ significantly in giving.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: the scored run's decisions. No amount is correct, so accuracy is not judged against chance, and the same amount in every round is accepted. A wrong answer to the comprehension question is flagged for review. Decisions confirmed under 200 ms on at least half the rounds invalidate.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. Giving the same amount every time is a stable preference, so repeated amounts are not checked. A participant who misreads who receives what may give the opposite of what they intend, so a wrong answer to the comprehension question is flagged for review and never invalidates. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Amount to split | 10 | 4 to 100 |
| Unit | Points (standard) | Points (standard), Tokens, Dollars, Euros, Pounds |
| Number of decisions | 1 | 1 to 10 |
| Payment line | Hypothetical amounts (standard) | Hypothetical amounts (standard), The study pays for decisions |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Dictator Game in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Forsythe R, Horowitz JL, Savin NE, Sefton M, 1994; Engel C, 2011), with the standard settings (amount to split: 10; unit: Points; number of decisions: 1; payment line: Hypothetical amounts). The main score was share given (amount given as a proportion of the amount to split, averaged over decisions).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6(3), 347-369. https://doi.org/10.1006/game.1994.1021
- Engel, C. (2011). Dictator games: A meta study. Experimental Economics, 14(4), 583-610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7Typical giving and the effect of payment.
Source papers
- Forsythe, Horowitz, Savin and Sefton (1994): the dictator game. Engel (2011): meta-study of 129 papers and 616 treatments.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Dictator Game take?
About 1 to 3 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Share Given, Amount Given, Gave Nothing, Equal Split, Gave Everything and Comprehension Check. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Dictator Game used in research?
771 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, up 8% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 33 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade B). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Dictator Game have?
In the published research, 8 papers report its test-retest reliability and 14 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade B in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Amount to split (4 to 100), unit (Points (standard), Tokens, Dollars, Euros, Pounds), number of decisions (1 to 10) and payment line (Hypothetical amounts (standard), The study pays for decisions). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.