IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v20y2010i01p107-126_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Explaining Unfair Offers in Ultimatum Games and their Effects on Trust: An Experimental Approach

Author

Listed:
  • De Cremer, David
  • van Dijk, Eric
  • Pillutla, Madan M.

Abstract

Unfair offers in bargaining may have disruptive effects because they may reduce interpersonal trust. In such situations future trust may be strongly affected by social accounts (i.e., apologies vs. denials). In the current paper we investigate when people are most likely to demand social accounts for the unfair offer (Experiment 1), and when social accounts will have the highest impact (Experiment 2). We hypothesized that the need for and impact of social accounts will be highest when the intentions of the other party are uncertain. The results provided support for this reasoning.

Suggested Citation

  • De Cremer, David & van Dijk, Eric & Pillutla, Madan M., 2010. "Explaining Unfair Offers in Ultimatum Games and their Effects on Trust: An Experimental Approach," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 107-126, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:20:y:2010:i:01:p:107-126_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00002797/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Filipe Sobral & Gazi Islam, 2013. "Ethically Questionable Negotiating: The Interactive Effects of Trust, Competitiveness, and Situation Favorability on Ethical Decision Making," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 117(2), pages 281-296, October.
    2. Desmet, Pieter T.M. & Cremer, David De & Dijk, Eric van, 2011. "In money we trust? The use of financial compensations to repair trust in the aftermath of distributive harm," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 114(2), pages 75-86, March.
    3. Schniter, Eric & Sheremeta, Roman M. & Sznycer, Daniel, 2013. "Building and rebuilding trust with promises and apologies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 242-256.
    4. Tucker, Danielle A. & Hendy, Jane & Barlow, James, 2016. "The dynamic nature of social accounts: An examination of how interpretive processes impact on account effectiveness," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 6079-6087.
    5. Dijke, Marius van & Cremer, David De, 2011. "When social accounts promote acceptance of unfair ultimatum offers: The role of the victim's stress responses to uncertainty and power position," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 468-479, June.
    6. Ben Gilbert & Alexander James & Jason F. Shogren, 2018. "Corporate apology for environmental damage," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 51-81, February.
    7. Eric Schniter & Roman M. Sheremeta & Daniel Sznycer, 2011. "Restoring Damaged Trust with Promises, Atonement and Apology," Working Papers 11-18, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    8. Leunissen, Joost M. & Cremer, David De & Reinders Folmer, Christopher P., 2012. "An instrumental perspective on apologizing in bargaining: The importance of forgiveness to apologize," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 215-222.
    9. Krista Hill & David Boyd, 2015. "Who Should Apologize When an Employee Transgresses? Source Effects on Apology Effectiveness," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(1), pages 163-170, August.
    10. De Cremer, David, 2010. "To pay or to apologize? On the psychology of dealing with unfair offers in a dictator game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 843-848, December.
    11. Pedro FrancŽs-G—mez & Lorenzo Sacconi & Marco Faillo, 2012. "Behavioral Business Ethics as a Method for Normative Business Ethics," Econometica Working Papers wp42, Econometica.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:20:y:2010:i:01:p:107-126_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.