title: Psychological traces of China's socio-economic reforms in the ultimatum and dictator games.
abstract: Can traces of rapid socio-economic changes within a society be reflected in experimental games? The post-Mao reforms in China provide a unique natural quasi-experiment to study people from the same society who were raised with radically different values about distribution of wealth and altruistic behavior. We tested whether the size of offers in the ultimatum and dictator games are an increasing function of the number of years Chinese citizens experienced of the Mao era ("planned economy"). For the cohort that lived throughout the entire Mao era, we found that mean offers in the two games were substantially higher than what is typically offered in laboratory studies. These offers were also higher than those of two younger Chinese cohorts. In general, the amount offered decreased with less time spent under Mao, while in the oldest group in which every member spent the same amount of time under Mao, the younger members tended to offer more, suggesting an additional effect of early education under Mao and contradicting the alternative hypothesis that generosity increases with age. These results suggest that some of the observed individual differences in the offers made in experimental games can be traced back to the values of the socio-economic era in which individuals grew up.
authors: Key Lab of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. zhulq@psych.ac.cn
authors: Liqi
authors: L
authors: Zhu
authors: Gerd
authors: G
authors: Gigerenzer
authors: Gang
authors: G
authors: Huangfu
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D044466:Asian People / Q000523:psychology*; D001519:Behavior; D002681:China; D015331:Cohort Studies; D005260:Female; D005717:Games, Experimental; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010865:Pilot Projects; D012959:Socioeconomic Factors; D055815:Young Adult
references: J Pers Soc Psychol. 1997 Oct;73(4):733-46
references: 9325591
references: Psychol Bull. 2002 Sep;128(5):728-45
references: 12206192
references: Behav Brain Sci. 2005 Dec;28(6):795-815; discussion 815-55
references: 16372952
references: Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:451-82
references: 21126183
references: Behav Brain Funct. 2006 Oct 18;2:35
references: 17049091
references: Top Cogn Sci. 2010 Jul;2(3):528-54
references: 25163875
references: Behav Brain Sci. 2001 Jun;24(3):383-403; discussion 403-51
references: 11682798