This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Learning to Accept in Ultimatum Games: Evidence from an Experimental Design that Generates Low Offers

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
John List
Todd Cherry

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Focusing on responder behavior, we report panel data findings from both low and high stakes ultimatum bargaining games. Whereas Slonim and Roth (1998) find that offers are rejected fairly equally across rounds in both low and high stakes games, we find that learning does take place, but only when there is sufficient money on the table. The disparate results can be reconciled when one considers the added power that our experimental design provides-detecting subtle temporal differences in responder behavior requires a data generation process that induces a significant number of proportionally low offers. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1009989907258
File Format: text/html
File Function:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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.

Publisher Info
Article provided by Springer in its journal Experimental Economics.

Volume (Year): 3 (2000)
Issue (Month): 1 (June)
Pages: 11-29
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:kap:expeco:v:3:y:2000:i:1:p:11-29

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=102888

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

Related research
Keywords: bargaining games; responder behavior; learning;

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

  1. Hoffman Elizabeth & McCabe Kevin & Shachat Keith & Smith Vernon, 1994. "Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 346-380, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. John Conlisk, 1996. "Why Bounded Rationality?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 669-700, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Hoffman, Elizabeth & McCabe, Kevin A & Smith, Vernon L, 1996. "On Expectations and the Monetary Stakes in Ultimatum Games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 289-301.
  4. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Chamberlain, Gary, 1980. "Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data," Review of Economic Studies, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 47(1), pages 225-38, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Hoffman, Elizabeth & McCabe, Kevin & Smith, Vernon L, 1996. "Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 653-60, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. John A. List & David Lucking-Reiley, 2000. "Demand Reduction in Multiunit Auctions: Evidence from a Sportscard Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 961-972, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Bolton, Gary E, 1991. "A Comparative Model of Bargaining: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1096-136, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Fudenberg, Drew & Levine, David K, 1997. "Measuring Players' Losses in Experimental Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 112(2), pages 507-36, May.
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, 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.)

  1. Todd L. Cherry & Peter Frykblom & Jason F. Shogren, 2002. "Hardnose the Dictator," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1218-1221, September. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. Anabela Botelho & Glenn W. Harrison & Marc A. Hirsch & Elisabet E. Rutstrom, 2001. "Bargaining behavior, demographics and nationality: a reconsideration of the experimental evidence," Working Papers 16, Núcleo de Investigação em Microeconomia Aplicada (NIMA), Universidade do Minho. [Downloadable!]
  3. Stephan Kroll & Todd Cherry & Jason Shogren, 2007. "The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on contributions in best-shot public good games," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 411-428, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  4. Luigi Mittone & Matteo Ploner, 2006. "Is It Just Legitimacy of Endowments? An Experimental Analysis of Unilateral Giving," CEEL Working Papers 0602, Computable and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia. [Downloadable!]
  5. Alan Sanfey, 2009. "Expectations and social decision-making: biasing effects of prior knowledge on Ultimatum responses," Mind and Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 8(1), pages 93-107, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. David Cooper & Nick Feltovich & Alvin Roth & Rami Zwick, 2003. "Relative versus Absolute Speed of Adjustment in Strategic Environments: Responder Behavior in Ultimatum Games," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 6(2), pages 181-207, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Todd L. Cherry & John A. List, 2004. "Examining the Role of Fairness in High Stakes Allocation Decisions," Working Papers 04-01, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  8. Glenn W. Harrison, 2005. "Field Experiments and Control," Artefactual Field Experiments 0049, The Field Experiments Website. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS was sponsored from 1997 to 2002 by the Université du Québec à Montréal.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-4.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.