IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwwpp/dp1708.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Entitled Women – but Not Men – Make Tougher Strategic Demands as Proposers in the Ultimatum Game

Author

Listed:
  • Elif E. Demiral
  • Johanna Mollerstrom

Abstract

In a laboratory experiment subjects are matched in pairs and interact in an Ultimatum Game. In the Entitlement treatment, the right to be the proposer is allocated to the personin the pair who performed better in a previously conducted math task. Compared to behavior in the control treatment, where the roles are randomly allocated, the proposers increase their strategic demands and offer a smaller share of the pie to the responder in the Entitlement treatment. This result is drivenentirely by female proposers; when earning their role, they significantly lower their offers, whereas male proposers do not behave differently than when roles are randomly allocated. This is in line with previous research suggesting that women are more sensitive to contextual factors and social cues, meaning that strengthening feelings of entitlement could be a way to decrease gender differences innegotiation behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Elif E. Demiral & Johanna Mollerstrom, 2017. "Entitled Women – but Not Men – Make Tougher Strategic Demands as Proposers in the Ultimatum Game," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1708, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp1708
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.573791.de/dp1708.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    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.
    2. Marcus Dittrich & Andreas Knabe & Kristina Leipold, 2014. "Gender Differences In Experimental Wage Negotiations," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(2), pages 862-873, April.
    3. Marcus Dittrich & Kristina Leipold, 2014. "Gender Differences in Strategic Reasoning," CESifo Working Paper Series 4763, CESifo.
    4. Andreas Leibbrandt & John A. List, 2015. "Do Women Avoid Salary Negotiations? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(9), pages 2016-2024, September.
    5. Eckel, Catherine C & Grossman, Philip J, 2001. "Chivalry and Solidarity in Ultimatum Games," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 171-188, April.
    6. Dittrich, Marcus & Leipold, Kristina, 2014. "Gender differences in time preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 413-415.
    7. 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.
    8. Oxoby, Robert J. & Spraggon, John, 2008. "Mine and yours: Property rights in dictator games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 703-713, March.
    9. Gärtner, Manja & Mollerstrom, Johanna & Seim, David, 2017. "Individual risk preferences and the demand for redistribution," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 49-55.
    10. Helga Maškarin Ribarić & Lorena Dadić & Martina Nađ, 2014. "Student volunteering - gender differences," Tourism and Hospitality Industry section7-2, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management.
    11. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    12. Solnick, Sara J, 2001. "Gender Differences in the Ultimatum Game," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 189-200, April.
    13. Cherry, Todd L., 2001. "Mental accounting and other-regarding behavior: Evidence from the lab," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 605-615, October.
    14. Korenok, Oleg & Millner, Edward & Razzolini, Laura, 2017. "Feelings of ownership in dictator games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 145-151.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Huang, Jennie & Low, Corinne, 2022. "The myth of the male negotiator: Gender’s effect on negotiation strategies and outcomes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 517-532.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Demiral, Elif E. & Mollerstrom, Johanna, 2020. "The entitlement effect in the ultimatum game – does it even exist?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 341-352.
    2. Andrzej Baranski & D.J. da Cunha Batista Geraldes & Ada Kovaliukaite & James Tremewan, 2021. "Experiment on Gender Representation in Majoritarian Bargaining," Working Papers 2102, Utrecht School of Economics.
    3. Jan Stoop, 2014. "From the lab to the field: envelopes, dictators and manners," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(2), pages 304-313, June.
    4. Christine L. Exley & Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2020. "Knowing When to Ask: The Cost of Leaning In," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(3), pages 816-854.
    5. Huang, Jennie & Low, Corinne, 2022. "The myth of the male negotiator: Gender’s effect on negotiation strategies and outcomes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 517-532.
    6. Johanna Mollerstrom, 2022. "Favoritism and cooperation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(3), pages 293-307, June.
    7. Breitmoser, Yves & Vorjohann, Pauline, 2018. "Welfare-Based Altruism," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 89, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    8. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    9. SeEun Jung & Radu Vranceanu, 2017. "Gender Interaction in Teams: Experimental Evidence on Performance and Punishment Behavior," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, vol. 33, pages 95-126.
    10. Iriberri, Nagore & Hernandez-Arenaz, Iñigo, 2022. "Gender Differences in Alternating-Offer Bargaining: An Experimental Study," CEPR Discussion Papers 12561, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Gary Charness & James Cox & Catherine Eckel & Charles Holt & Brian Jabarian, 2023. "The Virtues of Lab Experiments," CESifo Working Paper Series 10796, CESifo.
    12. Azmat, Ghazala & Petrongolo, Barbara, 2014. "Gender and the labor market: What have we learned from field and lab experiments?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 32-40.
    13. Abigail Barr & Justine Burns & Luis Miller & Ingrid Shaw, 2011. "Individual notions of distributive justice and relative economic status," Discussion Papers 2011005, University of Oxford, Nuffield College.
    14. Korenok, Oleg & Millner, Edward & Razzolini, Laura, 2017. "Feelings of ownership in dictator games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 145-151.
    15. Ogawa, Kazuhito & Takemoto, Toru & Takahashi, Hiromasa & Suzuki, Akihiro, 2012. "Income earning opportunity and work performance affect donating behavior: Evidence from dictator game experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 816-826.
    16. Faillo, Marco & Rizzolli, Matteo & Tontrup, Stephan, 2019. "Thou shalt not steal: Taking aversion with legal property claims," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 88-101.
    17. Michael Jetter & Kieran Stockley, 2023. "Gender match and negotiation: evidence from angel investment on Shark Tank," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 64(4), pages 1947-1977, April.
    18. Czap, Hans J. & Czap, Natalia V. & Burbach, Mark E. & Lynne, Gary D., 2018. "Does Might Make Right? An Experiment on Assigning Property Rights," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 229-240.
    19. Lina Eriksson, 2010. "Choice under description: The motivational nexus," Rationality and Society, , vol. 22(2), pages 159-187, May.
    20. Umer, Hamza, 2020. "Revisiting generosity in the dictator game: Experimental evidence from Pakistan," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:diw:diwwpp:dp1708. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    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.