IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v111y2011i2p113-115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Let me sleep on it: Delay reduces rejection rates in ultimatum games

Author

Listed:
  • Grimm, Veronika
  • Mengel, Friederike

Abstract

Delaying acceptance decisions in the Ultimatum Game drastically increases acceptance of low offers. While in treatments without delay less than 20% of low offers are accepted, 60-80% are accepted as we delay the acceptance decision by around 10Â min.

Suggested Citation

  • Grimm, Veronika & Mengel, Friederike, 2011. "Let me sleep on it: Delay reduces rejection rates in ultimatum games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 113-115, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:111:y:2011:i:2:p:113-115
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165-1765(11)00035-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jörg Oechssler & Andreas Roider & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2015. "Cooling Off in Negotiations: Does it Work?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 171(4), pages 565-588, December.
    2. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    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. Cardella, Eric & Chiu, Ray, 2012. "Stackelberg in the lab: The effect of group decision making and “Cooling-off” periods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1070-1083.
    2. Dustin P. Calvillo & Jessica N. Burgeno, 2015. "Cognitive reflection predicts the acceptance of unfair ultimatum game offers," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(4), pages 332-341, July.
    3. Brice Corgnet & Antonio M. Espín & Roberto Hernán-González, 2015. "The cognitive basis of social behavior: cognitive reflection overrides antisocial but not always prosocial motives," Working Papers 15-04, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    4. Marta Dyrkacz & Michal Krawczyk, 2015. "Exploring the role of deliberation time in non-selfish behaviour: the Double Response method," Working Papers 2015-27, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    5. repec:gam:jgames:v:8:y:2017:i:3:p:26-:d:102964 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Alexander W. Cappelen & Ulrik H. Nielsen & Bertil Tungodden & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2016. "Fairness is intuitive," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(4), pages 727-740, December.
    7. Federica Alberti & Sven Fischer & Werner Güth & Kei Tsutsui, 2013. "Concession Bargaining - An Experimental Comparison of Protocols and Time Horizons," Jena Economic Research Papers 2013-052, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    8. repec:spr:grdene:v:23:y:2014:i:4:d:10.1007_s10726-013-9361-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Paolo Crosetto & Werner Güth & Luigi Mittone & Matteo Ploner, 2012. "Motives of Sanctioning: Equity and Emotions in a Public Good Experiment with Punishment," Jena Economic Research Papers 2012-046, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    10. Gagnon, Nickolas & Noussair, C., 2016. "Does Reciprocity Persist Over Time?," Research Memorandum 033, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    11. Artavia-Mora, Luis & Bedi, Arjun S. & Rieger, Matthias, 2017. "Intuitive help and punishment in the field," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 133-145.
    12. Fabio Galeotti, 2013. "An Experiment on Waiting Time and Punishing Behavior," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(2), pages 1383-1389.
    13. Samahita, Margaret, 2017. "Venting and gossiping in conflicts: Verbal expression in ultimatum games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 111-121.
    14. Pierpaolo Battigalli & Martin Dufwenberg & Alec Smith, 2015. "Frustration and Anger in Games," CESifo Working Paper Series 5258, CESifo Group Munich.
    15. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    16. Leibbrandt, Andreas & Maitra, Pushkar & Neelim, Ananta, 2015. "On the redistribution of wealth in a developing country: Experimental evidence on stake and framing effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 360-371.
    17. Carola Braun & Katrin Rehdanz & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "Exploring public perception of environmental technology over time," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(1), pages 143-160, January.
    18. Neo, Wei Siong & Yu, Michael & Weber, Roberto A. & Gonzalez, Cleotilde, 2013. "The effects of time delay in reciprocity games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 20-35.
    19. repec:eee:soceco:v:72:y:2018:i:c:p:121-134 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Cappelletti, Dominique & Güth, Werner & Ploner, Matteo, 2011. "Being of two minds: Ultimatum offers under cognitive constraints," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 940-950.
    21. Jensen, Martin Kaae & Kozlovskaya, Maria, 2016. "A representation theorem for guilt aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 148-161.
    22. Barton, Jared & Castillo, Marco & Petrie, Ragan, 2016. "Negative campaigning, fundraising, and voter turnout: A field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 99-113.
    23. Samahita, Margaret, 2015. "Venting and Gossiping in Conflicts: Emotion Expression in Ultimatum Games," Working Papers 2015:33, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    24. Noussair, Charles N. & Offerman, Theo & Suetens, Sigrid & Van de Ven, Jeroen & Van Leeuwen, Boris & Van Veelen, Matthijs, 2014. "Predictably angry: Facial cues provide a credible signal of destructive behavior," IAST Working Papers 14-15, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ultimatum Bargaining Experiments;

    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:eee:ecolet:v:111:y:2011:i:2:p:113-115. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.