The ultimatum game is (in)famous for its `anomalies': The outcomes of laboratory experiments are very different from the results generated by traditional game theory. This paper aims to find to what extent these discrepancies between theory and experiments can be explained by the effects of bounded rationality and learning dynamics. These are modeled by several agent based models and computer simulations of evolutionary learning by pure imitation as well as imitation and experiments. The main result of the analysis is surprisingly clear and robust: Proposers do not play a subgame perfect strategy but instead `learn' to make offers of about 20 to 25 % of the total amount to their opponents.
Download Info
To our knowledge, this item is not available for
download. To find whether it is available, there are three
options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page
whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be
available.
Find related papers by JEL classification: C63 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods and Programming - - - Computational Techniques C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search, Learning, and Information
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.)