A Cash Effect in Ultimatum Game Experiments
AbstractThis paper reports two experiments involving an ultimatum game, conducted in Japan. There were two treatments in our experiments. One was called a cash session and the other was called a point session. The cash session means introducing cash into the ultimatum game. In other words, in a cash session, subjects bargained money in cash but not points or tokens as most prior experiments did. We found that compared to those in the point sessions, proposers offered more and responders rejected less in the cash sessions. These evidences imply that a cash effect does exist in the ultimatum game experiments.
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 Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University in its series Discussion Paper Series with number DP2013-13.
Length: 14 pages
Date of creation: Apr 2013
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 2-1 Rokkodai, Nada, Kobe 657-8501 JAPAN
Phone: +81-(0)78 803 7036
Fax: +81-(0)78 803 7059
Web page: http://www.rieb.kobe-u.ac.jp/index-e.html
More information through EDIRC
Cash effect; Ultimatum game; Cost-loss discrepancy; Experimental design;
Other versions of this item:
- Shen, Junyi & Takahashi, Hiromasa, 2013. "A cash effect in ultimatum game experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 94-102.
- C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2013-04-06 (All new papers)
- NEP-CBE-2013-04-06 (Cognitive & Behavioural Economics)
- NEP-EVO-2013-04-06 (Evolutionary Economics)
- NEP-EXP-2013-04-06 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-PBE-2013-04-06 (Public Economics)
- NEP-SOC-2013-04-06 (Social Norms & Social Capital)
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.:
- Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1991. "Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 106(4), pages 1039-61, November.
- Armin Falk & Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, .
"On the Nature of Fair Behavior,"
IEW - Working Papers
017, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Bolton Gary E. & Zwick Rami, 1995.
"Anonymity versus Punishment in Ultimatum Bargaining,"
Games and Economic Behavior,
Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 95-121, July.
- Gary E Bolton & Rami Zuwick, 2010. "Anonymity versus punishments in ultimatum bargaining," Levine's Working Paper Archive 826, David K. Levine.
- Ruffle, Bradley J., 1998. "More Is Better, But Fair Is Fair: Tipping in Dictator and Ultimatum Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 247-265, May.
- Tompkinson, Paul & Bethwaite, Judy, 1995. "The ultimatum game: raising the stakes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 439-451, August.
- Andersson, Ola & Galizzi, Matteo M. & Hoppe, Tim & Kranz, Sebastian & der Wiel, Karen van & Wengström, Erik, 2010.
"Persuasion in experimental ultimatum games,"
Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 16-18, July.
- Ola Andersson & Matteo M. Galizzi & Tim Hoppe & Sebastian Kranz & Karen van der Wiel & Erik Wengström, 2008. "Persuasion in Experimental Ultimatum Games," FEMM Working Papers 08020, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
- Ola Andersson & Matteo M. Galizzi & Tim Hoppe & Sebastian Kranz & Karen van der Wiel & Erik Wengstrom, 2008. "Persuasion in Experimental Ultimatum Games," Working Papers 0811, University of Brescia, Department of Economics.
- Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
- Croson, Rachel T. A., 1996. "Information in ultimatum games: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 197-212, August.
- Eckel, Catherine C & Grossman, Philip J, 2001. "Chivalry and Solidarity in Ultimatum Games," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 171-88, April.
- David Reinstein & Gerhard Riener, 2012. "Decomposing desert and tangibility effects in a charitable giving experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 229-240, March.
- Thaler, Richard, 1980. "Toward a positive theory of consumer choice," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 39-60, March.
- Robert Slonim & Alvin E. Roth, 1998. "Learning in High Stakes Ultimatum Games: An Experiment in the Slovak Republic," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 569-596, May.
- Lisa Cameron, 1995.
"Raising the Stakes in the Ultimatum Game: Experimental Evidence From Indonesia,"
724, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
- 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.
- Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
- Rankin, Frederick W., 2003. "Communication in ultimatum games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 267-271, November.
- Alvin E. Roth & V. Prasnikar & M. Okuno-Fujiwara & S. Zamir, 1998.
"Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Liubljana, Pittsburgh and Tokyo: an experimental study,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
344, David K. Levine.
- Roth, Alvin E. & Vesna Prasnikar & Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara & Shmuel Zamir, 1991. "Bargaining and Market Behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1068-95, December.
- 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.
- Schotter, Andrew & Weiss, Avi & Zapater, Inigo, 1996. "Fairness and survival in ultimatum and dictatorship games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 37-56, October.
- 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.
- John List & Todd Cherry, 2000. "Learning to Accept in Ultimatum Games: Evidence from an Experimental Design that Generates Low Offers," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 11-29, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Office of Promoting Research Collaboration, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.