pymetrics Money Exchange 2: Fairness and Generosity Guide | Game Assessment Prep

There is no correct answer—and we will never score this

There is no correct answer and we will never score this preference game. Money Exchange 2 asks you first to evaluate another person's allocation and then to make your own give-or-take decision with a fresh partner. Giving is not automatically good, taking is not automatically bad, and retaining resources is not a failure.

Our result is a neutral Fairness / Generosity trait reflection. It contains no accuracy score, practice percentile, pass mark, green or red evaluative band, or claim that one allocation is what employers want. If you use the take side, the reflection describes a strong self-interest signal without shaming it.

How the two rounds work

Round 1 is passive. You and Partner 1 each start with $5, then the partner receives an extra $5. The seeded script decides how much of that extra amount to allocate to you in fifty-cent steps. You see both final balances and rate the allocation's fairness from 0 to 10.

Round 2 reverses control with a new partner. You again both start with $5, but you receive the extra $5. One slider covers the full decision: move right to give Partner 2 between $0 and $5, remain at zero to keep the extra money without changing the partner's $5, or move left to take up to $5 from the partner. Every step is $0.50. After confirming, you rate your own allocation's fairness.

The final trait screen describes the allocation direction and may surface a comparison between how you rated Partner 1 and how you allocated with Partner 2. That observation is phrased as “how you rate others versus how you allocate,” never as hypocrisy or inconsistency. Completion remains deferred until you click Continue.

What does Money Exchange 2 signal?

The task belongs to the Dictator Game family, extended with a taking option. When you control the extra money, the amount given can describe other-directed allocation or generosity. Keeping the extra amount can describe resource retention. Taking from the partner can describe a strong self-interest signal. These are neutral behavioral directions, not grades.

Round 1 provides a fairness-norm observation. Your rating shows how another person's split felt when you were the recipient. Round 2 then records your own allocation and rating when you held control. Comparing the two can reveal whether your standards shift with role, but there are many coherent reasons for any pattern.

The task does not establish whether you are a fair person in everyday life. Real fairness depends on effort, need, ownership, relationship, and context, none of which a simplified exchange can capture. Pymetrics may use this behavior as one input in a wider role-specific profile, but its formula is not public.

What is known—and what remains uncertain?

Pymetrics patent US10902384B2 names a Dictator Task, which supports the paradigm but gives no dollar figures. The two-round observer-to-allocator structure comes from detailed preparation reports rather than patent text. Overall confidence is medium, with several product details still awaiting a verified recording.

The best-supported reconstruction gives both participants $5 and gives the active allocator control over an extra $5. It does not pool the full $10 into one unrestricted pot. The $0–$5 control in $0.50 increments is recommended but prep-source tier only.

The take mechanic is implemented as a fixed Round-2 feature because the verification found it described consistently as part of every playthrough, not merely an optional deployment. Its exact presentation remains unconfirmed. The 0–10 fairness endpoints and Partner 1's scripted allocation schedule are also configurable assumptions. We use a seeded range across the full extra $5 so every completed session is reproducible.

How to approach the game honestly

Read ownership carefully

In each round, distinguish the initial $5 balances from the extra $5. Round 1 gives control to the partner; Round 2 gives control to you. A misunderstanding can make the slider choice reflect arithmetic confusion rather than preference.

Use the full give-take scale as intended

Zero means you keep the extra $5 and leave the partner's starting money untouched. Positive values give; negative values take. Pause long enough to verify the previewed final balances before confirming.

Rate each exchange from its own role

Round 1 asks how the partner's action felt to you. Round 2 asks how fair your own allocation felt. Honest ratings need not be identical because agency and perspective changed.

Do not force artificial consistency

Trying to make the second allocation mechanically mirror the first rating can replace your real judgment with a test-taking performance. The comparison is descriptive, and role-dependent preferences are themselves information.

Do not avoid Take merely because it sounds negative

Take is a deliberately available action in this reconstruction. If it reflects your genuine allocation preference, using it is valid. The trait screen describes self-interest neutrally and never marks it wrong.

Do not manufacture generosity

Giving the maximum because it appears socially desirable does not create a universally superior profile. Different roles and organizations can value resource protection, assertiveness, cooperation, or other combinations. There is no disclosed target allocation.

How to read the trait reflection

The continuum runs from focus on one's own resources to other-directed allocation. Your marker comes from the give-take control but displays no numeric score or percentile. The summary names the action in ordinary language and explains what that direction can signal.

When relevant, the observation repeats Partner 1's allocation, your fairness rating, and your Round-2 decision. Numbers here describe the events you entered; they are not combined into a grade. The educational footer reminds you that pymetrics matches profiles to employer role models and that there is no universally correct answer.

The event log stores both allocations, final balances, fairness ratings, reaction times, seed, and timestamps. The shared percentile request is completely skipped for this game, and the standard score tiles and below-median nudge never render.

Money Exchange 2 FAQ

What does zero on the slider mean?

You keep your extra $5, keep your original $5, and leave the partner's original $5 unchanged. It is a resource-retention choice, distinct from giving or taking.

Is taking money an incorrect response?

No. It is a strong self-interest signal and is described neutrally. The control includes it because the give-take extension is part of the reconstructed task.

Should I copy Partner 1's allocation?

No rule requires that. Round 1 asks for your fairness judgment; Round 2 asks for your own choice with a fresh partner. Respond to each role honestly.

Why show the rating-allocation comparison?

It makes the recorded behavior understandable and describes how evaluation and allocation relate. It does not call you inconsistent, fair, unfair, or hypocritical.

Can I fail this game?

There is no game-level pass mark, correct allocation, or practice percentile. An employer may compare a combined behavioral profile with a role model, but pymetrics does not publish a universally preferred Money Exchange response.