IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v233y2025ics0167268125000897.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ultimatum game: Regret or fairness?

Author

Listed:
  • Aleksanyan, L.H.
  • Allahverdyan, A.E.
  • Bardakhchyan, V.G.

Abstract

In the ultimatum game, the challenge is to explain why responders reject non-zero offers thereby defying classical rationality. Fairness and related concepts have been among the main explanations so far. Here, the ultimatum game is reformulated based on probabilistic lotteries, enabling modern decision-making tools to be applied to this problem. We explain the rejection behavior via the following principle: if the responder regrets less about losing the offer than the proposer regrets not offering a better option, the offer is rejected. This principle qualifies as a rational conflict behavior. Similar concepts were applied in the economy of wars. The principle replaces the experimentally falsified classical rationality (the subgame perfect Nash equilibrium) that leads to accepting any non-zero offer. It is implemented via the transitive regret theory for probabilistic lotteries. The expected utility implementation is a limiting case of this. We show that several experimental results normally prescribed to fairness and intent-recognition can be given an alternative explanation; e.g. the comparison between “fair” and “superfair”, the behavior under raising the stakes, the influence of the initial wealth, etc. Hence we also propose experiments that can distinguish these two scenarios (fairness versus regret). They assume different utilities for the proposer and responder. We focus on the mini-ultimatum version of the game and also show how it can emerge from a more general setup.

Suggested Citation

  • Aleksanyan, L.H. & Allahverdyan, A.E. & Bardakhchyan, V.G., 2025. "Ultimatum game: Regret or fairness?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:233:y:2025:i:c:s0167268125000897
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2025.106969
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268125000897
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2025.106969?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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ultimatum game; Regret; Lotteries;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    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:jeborg:v:233:y:2025:i:c:s0167268125000897. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/jebo .

    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.