Stakes Matter in Ultimatum Games
AbstractThe canonical bargaining game in economics is the ultimatum game, played by tens of thousands of students around the world over the past three decades. In the ultimatum game, first studied by Werner Guth, Rolf Schmittberger, and Bernd Schwarze (1982), the “proposer” proposes how to split a pie between herself and a “responder.” Then the responder decides whether to accept or reject this proposal. If the responder accepts, then the proposal is implemented; otherwise, both players receive nothing. For players motivated purely by monetary considerations, the standard subgame-perfect equilibrium solution implies that the proposer receives almost all of the money. In this manner, the ultimatum game represents a stylized glimpse into the underpinnings of decision-making at the heart of economics. For instance, a monopolist setting a price, a monopsonist setting a wage, or more generally any bargaining situation that has a take it or leave it element.
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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Copenhagen Business School, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 01-2011.
Length: 26 pages
Date of creation: 01 Feb 2011
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Department of Economics, Copenhagen Business School, Solbjerg Plads 3 C, 5. sal, DK-2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark
Phone: 38 15 25 75
Fax: 38 15 26 65
Web page: http://www.cbs.dk/departments/econ/
More information through EDIRC
game theory; decision-making; price theory;
Other versions of this item:
- 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.:
- Matthias Sutter, 2007.
"Deception through telling the truth?! Experimental evidence from individuals and teams,"
2007-26, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
- Matthias Sutter, 2009. "Deception Through Telling the Truth?! Experimental Evidence From Individuals and Teams," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(534), pages 47-60, 01.
- 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.
- 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.
- Uri Gneezy, 2005. "Deception: The Role of Consequences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 384-394, March.
- 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.
- 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.
- He, Yuqing, 2012. "Experimental test of utility maximization," Economics Discussion Papers 2012-32, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
- 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, 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- Anmol Ratan, 2012. "Mistakes, Closure and Endowment Effect in Laboratory Experiments," Monash Economics Working Papers 22-12, Monash University, Department of Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lars Nondal).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.