Theory and Decision 48 (2):151-177 (2000)
|Abstract||While fairness is often mentioned as a determinant of ultimatum bargaining behavior, few data sets are available that can test theories that incorporate fairness considerations. This paper tests the reciprocal kindness theory in Rabin (1993 Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics, The American Economic Review 83: 1281-1302) as an application to the one-period ultimatum bargaining game. We report on data from 100 ultimatum games that vary the financial stakes of the game from 1 to 15. Responder behavior is strongly in support of the kindness theory and proposer behavior weakly in support of it. Offer percentages and past offers influence behavior the most, whereas the size of the pie has a marginally significant effect on offer percentages. The data is more in support of reciprocal kindness than alternative theories of equal-split or learning behavior, although the data also weakly support a minimum percentage threshold hypothesis. As a whole, our results together with existing studies suggest that, for smaller stakes games, fairness considerations dominate monetary considerations. This has implications for more complicated naturally occurring bargaining environments in which the financial stakes can vary widely|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kevin J. S. Zollman (2008). Explaining Fairness in Complex Environments. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7 (1):81-97.
Bertrand Munier & Costin Zaharia (2002). High Stakes and Acceptance Behavior in Ultimatum Bargaining. Theory and Decision 53 (3):187-207.
Alan G. Sanfey (2009). Expectations and Social Decision-Making: Biasing Effects of Prior Knowledge on Ultimatum Responses. Mind and Society 8 (1):93-107.
Benoit Hardy-Vallée & Paul Thagard (2008). How to Play the Ultimatum Game: An Engineering Approach to Metanormativity. Philosophical Psychology 21 (2):173 – 192.
William Harms (1997). Evolution and Ultimatum Bargaining. Theory and Decision 42 (2):147-175.
Randolph C. Grace & Simon Kemp (2005). What Does the Ultimatum Game Mean in the Real World? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):824-825.
Francesco Guala (2008). Paradigmatic Experiments: The Ultimatum Game From Testing to Measurement Device. Philosophy of Science 75 (5):658-669.
B. Skyrms & K. J. S. Zollman (2010). Evolutionary Considerations in the Framing of Social Norms. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 9 (3):265-273.
Peter J. B. Hancock & Lisa M. DeBruine (2003). What's a Face Worth: Noneconomic Factors in Game Playing. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (2):162-163.
Gerd Gigerenzer & Thalia Gigerenzer (2005). Is the Ultimatum Game a Three-Body Affair? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):823-824.
Shaun Nichols (2010). Emotions, Norms, and the Genealogy of Fairness. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 9 (3):275-296.
Michael Litschka, Michaela Suske & Roman Brandtweiner (2011). Decision Criteria in Ethical Dilemma Situations: Empirical Examples From Austrian Managers. Journal of Business Ethics 104 (4):473-484.
Eva Hofmann, Erik Hoelzl & Erich Kirchler (2008). A Comparison of Models Describing the Impact of Moral Decision Making on Investment Decisions. Journal of Business Ethics 82 (1):171 - 187.
Joseph Henrich, Robert Boyd, Samuel Bowles, Colin Camerer, Ernst Fehr, Herbert Gintis, Richard McElreath, Michael Alvard, Abigail Barr, Jean Ensminger, Natalie Smith Henrich, Kim Hill, Francisco Gil-White, Michael Gurven, Frank W. Marlowe & John Q. Patton (2005). “Economic Man” in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):795-815.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads3 ( #201,930 of 549,087 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?