IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v244y2024ics0165176524004634.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ultimatum bargaining: Algorithms vs. Humans

Author

Listed:
  • Ozkes, Ali I.
  • Hanaki, Nobuyuki
  • Vanderelst, Dieter
  • Willems, Jurgen

Abstract

We study human behavior in ultimatum game when interacting with either human or algorithmic opponents. We examine how the type of the AI algorithm (mimicking human behavior, optimising gains, or providing no explanation) and the presence of a human beneficiary affect sending and accepting behaviors. Our experimental data reveal that subjects generally do not differentiate between human and algorithmic opponents, between different algorithms, and between an explained and unexplained algorithm. However, they are more willing to forgo higher payoffs when the algorithm’s earnings benefit a human.

Suggested Citation

  • Ozkes, Ali I. & Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Vanderelst, Dieter & Willems, Jurgen, 2024. "Ultimatum bargaining: Algorithms vs. Humans," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:244:y:2024:i:c:s0165176524004634
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2024.111979
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176524004634
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2024.111979?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Pablo Branas-Garza & Antonio M. Espin & Benedikt Herrmann, 2014. "Fair and unfair punishers coexist in the Ultimatum Game," SEET Working Papers 2014-02, BELIS, Istanbul Bilgi University.
    3. van Damme, Eric & Binmore, Kenneth G. & Roth, Alvin E. & Samuelson, Larry & Winter, Eyal & Bolton, Gary E. & Ockenfels, Axel & Dufwenberg, Martin & Kirchsteiger, Georg & Gneezy, Uri & Kocher, Martin G, 2014. "How Werner Güth's ultimatum game shaped our understanding of social behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 292-318.
    4. March, Christoph, 2021. "Strategic interactions between humans and artificial intelligence: Lessons from experiments with computer players," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    5. Chugunova, Marina & Sele, Daniela, 2022. "We and It: An interdisciplinary review of the experimental evidence on how humans interact with machines," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fabian Dvorak & Regina Stumpf & Sebastian Fehrler & Urs Fischbacher, 2024. "Generative AI Triggers Welfare-Reducing Decisions in Humans," Papers 2401.12773, arXiv.org.
    2. Shanshan Zhen & Rongjun Yu, 2016. "Tend to Compare and Tend to Be Fair: The Relationship between Social Comparison Sensitivity and Justice Sensitivity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, May.
    3. Mario A. Maggioni & Domenico Rossignoli, 2022. "Being in Someone Else's Shoes. Order of play and non-zero equilibria in the ultimatum game," DISEIS - Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia internazionale, delle istituzioni e dello sviluppo dis2203, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimento di Economia internazionale, delle istituzioni e dello sviluppo (DISEIS).
    4. Jyotishka Ray & Syam Menon & Vijay Mookerjee, 2020. "Bargaining over Data: When Does Making the Buyer More Informed Help?," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 1-15, March.
    5. Sutan, Angela & Vranceanu, Radu, 2016. "Lying about delegation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 29-40.
    6. Ignacio Tamarit & Angel Sánchez, 2016. "Emotions and Strategic Behaviour: The Case of the Ultimatum Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-12, July.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:3:p:743-765 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Vincenz Frey & Hannah N. M. Mulder & Marlijn Bekke & Marijn E. Struiksma & Jos J. A. Berkum & Vincent Buskens, 2022. "Do self-talk phrases affect behavior in ultimatum games?," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 21(1), pages 89-119, June.
    9. Hodaka Morita & Maroš Servátka, 2018. "Investment in Outside Options as Opportunistic Behavior: An Experimental Investigation," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(2), pages 457-484, October.
    10. Gorny, Paul M. & Groos, Eva & Strobel, Christina, 2024. "Do Personalized AI Predictions Change Subsequent Decision-Outcomes? The Impact of Human Oversight," MPRA Paper 121065, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Gizatulina, Alia & Gorelkina, Olga, 2021. "Selling “Money” on eBay: A field study of surplus division," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 19-38.
    12. Buchanan, Joy & Hickman, William, 2024. "Do people trust humans more than ChatGPT?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    13. Elias L Khalil & Nick Feltovich, 2018. "Moral licensing, instrumental apology and insincerity aversion: Taking Immanuel Kant to the lab," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-24, November.
    14. 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.
    15. Charles A. Holt & Katri K. Sieberg, 2022. "Bargaining, Fairness and Conflict," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 259-288, December.
    16. Alisa Voslinsky & Yaron Lahav & Ofer H. Azar, 2021. "Does a second offer that becomes irrelevant affect fairness perceptions and willingness to accept in the ultimatum game?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(3), pages 743-765, May.
    17. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Espín, Antonio M. & Lenkei, Balint, 2015. "BMI is not related to altruism, fairness, trust or reciprocity: Experimental evidence from the field and the lab," MPRA Paper 68184, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Michael Seiler, 2014. "The Effect of Perceived Lender Characteristics and Market Conditions on Strategic Mortgage Defaults," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 256-270, February.
    19. Giuseppe Attanasi & Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Aldo Montesano, 2015. "Bargaining over Strategies of Non-Cooperative Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-26, August.
    20. Robison, Lindon J. & Hanson, Steven D., 1995. "Social Capital and Economic Cooperation," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 43-58, July.
    21. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.

    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:244:y:2024:i:c:s0165176524004634. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

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

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.