David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Theory and Decision 53 (3):187-207 (2002)
This paper presents the results of a within-subject experiment testing whether an increase in the monetary stakes by a factor of 50 â which had never been done before â influences individual behavior in a simple ultimatum bargaining game. Contrary to current wisdom, we found that lowest acceptable offers stated by the responder are proportionally lower in the high-stake condition than in the low-stake condition. This result may be interpreted in terms of the type of utility functions which characterize the subjects. However, in line with prior results, we find that an important increase of the monetary stakes in the ultimatum game has no effect on the offers made by the proposer. Yet, the present research suggests that the reasons underlying these offers are quite different when the stakes are high
|Keywords||Experiment Lowest acceptable offfers Monetary stakes Ultimatum|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Yan Wu, Yufeng Zang, Binke Yuan & Xuehong Tian (2015). Neural Correlates of Decision Making After Unfair Treatment. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 9.
Similar books and articles
David L. Dickinson (2000). Ultimatum Decision-Making: A Test of Reciprocal Kindness. Theory and Decision 48 (2):151-177.
Kevin J. S. Zollman (2008). Explaining Fairness in Complex Environments. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 7 (1):81-97.
Benoit Hardy-Vallée & Paul Thagard (2008). How to Play the Ultimatum Game: An Engineering Approach to Metanormativity. Philosophical Psychology 21 (2):173 – 192.
Jennifer Nagel (2010). Epistemic Anxiety and Adaptive Invariantism. Philosophical Perspectives 24 (1):407-435.
Michele S. Moses & Michael J. Nanna (2007). The Testing Culture and the Persistence of High Stakes Testing Reforms. Education and Culture 23 (1):55-72.
Alan G. Sanfey (2009). Expectations and Social Decision-Making: Biasing Effects of Prior Knowledge on Ultimatum Responses. [REVIEW] Mind and Society 8 (1):93-107.
Randolph C. Grace & Simon Kemp (2005). What Does the Ultimatum Game Mean in the Real World? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):824-825.
William Harms (1997). Evolution and Ultimatum Bargaining. Theory and Decision 42 (2):147-175.
Gerd Gigerenzer & Thalia Gigerenzer (2005). Is the Ultimatum Game a Three-Body Affair? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (6):823-824.
Wesley Buckwalter & Jonathan Schaffer (2015). Knowledge, Stakes, and Mistakes. Noûs 49 (2):201–234.
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.
B. Skyrms & K. J. S. Zollman (2010). Evolutionary Considerations in the Framing of Social Norms. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 9 (3):265-273.
Francesco Guala (2008). Paradigmatic Experiments: The Ultimatum Game From Testing to Measurement Device. Philosophy of Science 75 (5):658-669.
Stuart J. Youngner (2007). The Stakes Are Not Very High in This Game. American Journal of Bioethics 7 (4):42 – 43.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads22 ( #181,592 of 1,934,535 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #434,193 of 1,934,535 )
How can I increase my downloads?