IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/gamebe/v153y2025icp67-93.html

“Equilibrium play in voluntary ultimatum games: Beneficence cannot be extorted” - Comment

Author

Listed:
  • Brooksby, Austin
  • Meyer, Jacob
  • Rentschler, Lucas
  • Smith, Vernon
  • Spofford, Robbie

Abstract

Smith and Wilson (2018) argue that behavior in the ultimatum game may be due to the typical implementation, in which players are not given the opportunity to opt out of the game. Using insights from Smith (1759), they suggest that making play voluntary would increase rates of equilibrium play. They conducted an augmented ultimatum game where the responder first decides whether to participate, and compare their experimental data to stylized facts from the literature, reporting “far higher rates of equilibrium play...than heretofore reported”. However, they do not run standard versions of the ultimatum game as a control. To ensure their interpretation is warranted, we conducted experiments of both their augmented game and an analogous standard ultimatum game. In our data, rates of equilibrium play were not higher in the augmented game. Thus, we find no support for the primary conclusion of Smith and Wilson (2018).

Suggested Citation

  • Brooksby, Austin & Meyer, Jacob & Rentschler, Lucas & Smith, Vernon & Spofford, Robbie, 2025. "“Equilibrium play in voluntary ultimatum games: Beneficence cannot be extorted” - Comment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 67-93.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:gamebe:v:153:y:2025:i:c:p:67-93
    DOI: 10.1016/j.geb.2025.05.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825625000752
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.geb.2025.05.009?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Vernon L. & Wilson, Bart J., 2018. "Equilibrium play in voluntary ultimatum games: Beneficence cannot be extorted," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 452-464.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    3. Lambsdorff, Johann Graf & Grubiak, Kevin & Werner, Katharina, 2023. "Intrinsic Motivation vs. Corruption? Experimental Evidence on the Performance of Officials," MPRA Paper 118153, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Berentsen, Aleksander & McBride, Michael & Rocheteau, Guillaume, 2017. "Limelight on dark markets: Theory and experimental evidence on liquidity and information," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 70-90.
    5. Federica Alberti & Werner Güth & Kei Tsutsui, 2023. "Experimental Effects of Institutionalizing Co-determination by a Procedurally Fair Bidding Rule," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(2), pages 445-458, May.
    6. Aniol Llorente-Saguer & Ro’i Zultan, 2014. "Auction Mechanisms And Bidder Collusion: Bribes, Signals And Selection," Working Papers 1406, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    7. Daniela Di Cagno & Arianna Galliera & Werner Güth & Luca Panaccione, 2018. "Gender Differences in Yielding to Social Influence: An Impunity Experiment," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-12, October.
    8. Yanling Zhang & Feng Fu, 2018. "Strategy intervention for the evolution of fairness," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, May.
    9. Joy Buchanan & Elif E. Demiral & Ümit Sağlam, 2025. "Effort transparency and fairness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 202(3), pages 611-626, March.
    10. Casal, Sandro & Fallucchi, Francesco & Quercia, Simone, 2019. "The role of morals in three-player ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 67-79.
    11. Shuwen Li & Xiangdong Qin & Daniel Houser, 2018. "Revisiting gender differences in ultimatum bargaining: experimental evidence from the US and China," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(2), pages 180-190, December.
    12. Zhang, Yanling & Yang, Shuo & Chen, Xiaojie & Bai, Yanbing & Xie, Guangming, 2023. "Reputation update of responders efficiently promotes the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    13. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    14. Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2016. "Equity and bargaining power in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 144-165.
    15. Sutter, Matthias & Zoller, Claudia & Glätzle-Rützler, Daniela, 2019. "Economic behavior of children and adolescents – A first survey of experimental economics results," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 98-121.
    16. Mago, Shakun D. & Pate, Jennifer & Razzolini, Laura, 2024. "Experimental evidence on the role of outside obligations in wage negotiations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 528-548.
    17. James Boudreau & Shane Sanders, 2025. "Tullock contest alliances with proportional prize-sharing agreements: private collective action mechanisms?," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 202(3), pages 367-381, March.
    18. Corgnet, Brice & Gächter, Simon & Hernán-González, Roberto, 2025. "The contractual dispute resolution game: Real-effort experiments on contract negotiation and arbitration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    19. Daniela Di Cagno & Werner Güth & Luca Panaccione & Maria Cristina Scarafile, 2023. "Proposer and responder conceding in impunity bargaining," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(4), pages 722-747, November.
    20. Gary Bolton & Peter Werner, 2016. "The influence of potential on wages and effort," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(3), pages 535-561, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:gamebe:v:153:y:2025:i:c:p:67-93. 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/inca/622836 .

    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.