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! ]

No Switchbacks: Rethinking Aspiration-Based Dynamics in the Ultimatum Game

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Jeffrey Carpenter ()
Peter Matthews ()

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

Abstract

The stylized facts of ultimatum bargaining in the experimental lab are that offers tend to be near an equal split of the surplus and low, near perfect offers are routinely rejected. Bimmore et al (1995) use aspiration-based evolutionary dynamics to model the evolution of fair play in a binary choice version of this game, and show that incredible threats to reject low offers persist in equilibrium. We focus on two possible extensions of this analysis: (1) the model makes assumptions about agent motivations (aspiration levels) and the structure of the game (binary strategy space) that have not yet been tested experimentally, and (2) the standard dynamic is based on the problematic assumption that unhappy games who switch strategies may end up using the same strategy that was just rejected. To examine the implications of not allowing agents to “switch back” to their original strategy, we develop a “no switchback dynamic” and run a new, binary choice, experiment with induced aspirations. We find that the resulting dynamic predicts the evolution of play better than the standard dynamic and that aspirations are a significant motivator for our participants.

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://www.middlebury.edu/services/econ/repec/mdl/ancoec/0218.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Middlebury College, Department of Economics in its series Middlebury College Working Paper Series with number 0218.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 30 pages
Date of creation: Jun 2002
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:mdl:mdlpap:0218

Contact details of provider:

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Janine Podraza).

Related research
Keywords: ultimatum game; learning; aspirations; switchbacks; replicator dynamics;

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

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. Karandikar, Rajeeva & Mookherjee, Dilip & Ray, Debraj & Vega-Redondo, Fernando, 1998. "Evolving Aspirations and Cooperation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 292-331, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Prasnikar, Vesna & Roth, Alvin E, 1992. "Considerations of Fairness and Strategy: Experimental Data from Sequential Games," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 107(3), pages 865-88, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Jeffrey Carpenter, 2002. "Bargaining Outcomes as the Result of Coordinated Expectations: An Experimental Study of Sequential Bargaining," Middlebury College Working Paper Series 0204, Middlebury College, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  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. Bolton Gary E. & Zwick Rami, 1995. "Anonymity versus Punishment in Ultimatum Bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 95-121, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Jorgen W. Weibull, 1997. "Evolutionary Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262731215, December.
  7. Friedman, Daniel, 1996. "Equilibrium in Evolutionary Games: Some Experimental Results," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(434), pages 1-25, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
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. Jeffrey Carpenter & Peter Matthews, 2002. "Social Reciprocity," Middlebury College Working Paper Series 0229, Middlebury College, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. Hassan Benchekroun & Ngo Van Long, 2006. "The Build-up of Cooperative Behavior among Non-cooperative Agents," CIRANO Working Papers 2006s-17, CIRANO. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You may want to explore EconPapers, which displays the same data as IDEAS in a different way.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-13.

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.