Stakes Matter in Ultimatum Games
AbstractOne of the most robust findings in experimental economics is that individuals in one-shot ultimatum games reject unfair offers. Puzzlingly, rejections have been found robust to substantial increases in stakes. By using a novel experimental design that elicits frequent low offers and uses much larger stakes than in the literature, we are able to examine stakes' effects over ranges of data that are heretofore unexplored. Our main result is that proportionally equivalent offers are less likely to be rejected with high stakes. In fact, our paper is the first to present evidence that as stakes increase, rejection rates approach zero. (JEL: C72, C78, C91)
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by American Economic Association in its journal American Economic Review.
Volume (Year): 101 (2011)
Issue (Month): 7 (December)
Other versions of this item:
- Andersen, Steffen & Ertaç, Seda & Gneezy, Uri & Hoffman , Moshe & List, John A., 2011. "Stakes Matter in Ultimatum Games," Working Papers 01-2011, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics.
- Steffen Andersen & Uri Gneezy & Moshe Hoffman & Seda Ertac & John List, 2011. "Stakes matter in ultimatum games," Framed Field Experiments 00118, The Field Experiments Website.
- C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
- D40 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure and Pricing - - - General
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Todd L. Cherry & John A. List, 2004.
"Examining the Role of Fairness in High Stakes Allocation Decisions,"
04-01, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
- List, John A. & Cherry, Todd L., 2008. "Examining the role of fairness in high stakes allocation decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 1-8, January.
- Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
- Cameron, Lisa A, 1999. "Raising the Stakes in the Ultimatum Game: Experimental Evidence from Indonesia," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 37(1), pages 47-59, January.
- Jeffrey Carpenter, 2002.
"The Demand for Punishment,"
Middlebury College Working Paper Series
0243, Middlebury College, Department of Economics.
- Matthias Sutter, 2009.
"Deception Through Telling the Truth?! Experimental Evidence From Individuals and Teams,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 47-60, 01.
- Matthias Sutter, 2007. "Deception through telling the truth?! Experimental evidence from individuals and teams," Working Papers 2007-26, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
- Uri Gneezy, 2005. "Deception: The Role of Consequences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 384-394, March.
- Werner Güth & Martin G. Kocher, 2013.
"More than Thirty Years of Ultimatum Bargaining Experiments: Motives, Variations, and a Survey of the Recent Literature,"
CESifo Working Paper Series
4380, CESifo Group Munich.
- Werner Güth & Martin G. Kocher, 2013. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Jena Economic Research Papers 2013-035, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics.
- Griffin, John & Nickerson, David & Wozniak, Abigail, 2012.
"Racial differences in inequality aversion: Evidence from real world respondents in the ultimatum game,"
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 600-617.
- John D. Griffin & David Nickerson & Abigail K. Wozniak, 2011. "Racial Differences in Inequality Aversion: Evidence from Real World Respondents in the Ultimatum Game," NBER Working Papers 17097, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Griffin, John & Nickerson, David & Wozniak, Abigail, 2011. "Racial Differences in Inequality Aversion: Evidence from Real World Respondents in the Ultimatum Game," IZA Discussion Papers 5569, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Guillermo Baquero & Willem Smit & Luc Wathieu, 2013. "The generosity effect: Fairness in sharing gains and losses," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-13-08, ESMT European School of Management and Technology.
- Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2013. "Experimental methods: Extra-laboratory experiments-extending the reach of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 93-100.
- Mentzakis, Emmanouil & Mestelman, Stuart, 2013. "Hypothetical bias in value orientations ring games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(3), pages 562-565.
- repec:fee:wpaper:1301 is not listed on IDEAS
- Anmol Ratan, 2012. "Mistakes, Closure and Endowment Effect in Laboratory Experiments," Monash Economics Working Papers 22-12, Monash University, Department of Economics.
- He, Yuqing, 2012. "Experimental test of utility maximization," Economics Discussion Papers 2012-32, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
- Jason Shachat & J. Todd Swarthout, 2013. "Auctioning the Right to Play Ultimatum Games and the Impact on Equilibrium Selection," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 4(4), pages 738-753, November.
- Ken Binmore, 2010. "Social norms or social preferences?," Mind and Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 9(2), pages 139-157, December.
- Jason Shachat & J. Todd Swarthout, 2013.
"Auctioning the right to play ultimatum games and the impact on equilibrium selection,"
Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series
2013-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jane Voros) or (Michael P. Albert).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.