Editing Dictator game (section)

==Application==
The initial game was developed by [[Daniel Kahneman]] in the 1980s and involved three parties, with one active and two passive participants. However, it was only in 1994 that a paper by [[Robert E. Forsythe|Forsythe]] et al. simplified this to the contemporary form of this game with one decision-maker (the dictator) and one passive participant (the recipient). One would expect players to behave "rationally" and maximize their own payoffs, as shown by the [[homo economicus]] principle; however, it has been shown that human populations are more “benevolent than homo economicus” and therefore rarely do the majority give nothing to the recipient.<ref name="Engel-2011">{{cite journal | last1 = Engel | first1 = C | year = 2011 | title = Dictator Games: A Meta Study | journal = Experimental Economics | volume = 14 | issue = 4| pages = 583–610 | doi = 10.1007/s10683-011-9283-7 | hdl = 11858/00-001M-0000-0028-6DAA-8 | s2cid = 195330301 | hdl-access = free }}</ref>

In the original dictator game, the dictator and the recipient were randomly selected and completely unknown. However it was found that the result was different depending on the social distance between the two parties. The level of "[[social distance]]" that a dictator and a recipient have changes the ratio of endowment that the dictator is willing to give. If the dictator in the game has anonymity with the recipient, resulting in a high level of social distance, they are most likely to give less endowment, whereas players with a low level of social distance, whether they are very familiar with each other or shallowly acquainted, are more likely to give a higher proportion of the endowment to the recipient.<ref name="andreoni" />

When players are within an organization, they are likely to have a low level of [[social distance]]. Within organizations, altruism and [[prosocial behavior]] are heavily relied on in dictator games for optimal organizational output. Prosocial behavior encourages the “intention of promoting the welfare of the individual, group, or organization toward which it is directed”.<ref>Brief and Motowildo, 1986, p. 711</ref>