The task will take place in pairs, in which case one of the participants will be Player A, and the other participant will be Player B. The assignment of Player A and Player B will be done randomly by the computer.
Player A knows someone who is selling something and vouches for him to Player B. So Player B buys from that someone.
Player A could either give his money to Player B or keep it.
Then Player B was told to decide whether to share his bounty with Player A. In almost all trials, Player A gave away his money, trusting Player B to share.
Specifically, if somebody is late for training should I, a) punish that player, b) punish everybody, or c) not punish anybody, or d) something else?
The first number in each entry is the payoff to the row player (player A), and the second number is the payoff to the column player (player B).
Player A (the dictator) is issued a sum of money; he or she gets to decide whether to share the money with player B, and if so, how much to give.
The cover was off the pool table because I'd left in the middle of a climactic match between Player A and Player B, all the angles still in play.
If he gave it away, the amount would be quadrupled, so that Player B would end up with 50 units (his own units plus the 40 from Player A).
But often Player B did not share, in which case Player A was given time to decide how to react -- by doing nothing or reducing Player B's payoff by anywhere from 2 to 40 units.
And the sum player B returns to player A is therefore a measure of reciprocity.
