IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this book chapter or follow this series

Gerechtigkeit siegt über Eigennutz Ein Ultimatum Bargaining Game anhand von WM-Tickets

  • Marc Piazolo


    (Geld, Kredit und Außenwirtschaft University of Applied Sciences Kaiserslautern)

Registered author(s):

    Fairness wird nicht nur im Sport groß geschrieben, sondern auch im sozialen Alltag. Wie sieht es jedoch damit aus, wenn es um begehrte Dinge geht - beispielsweise um Eintrittskarten zu Spielen der Fußball-WM 2006? Im Rahmen eines Zeitungs- bzw. Internetexperiments untersuchten wir, ob Gerechtigkeitsvorstellungen wirtschaftliche Entscheidungen beeinflussen. Hierzu riefen wir im Mai 2006 zu einem fiktiven Gewinnspiel auf, bei dem zwölf Eintrittskarten für die Fußball-WM verteilt werden sollten. In einem ersten Schritt, wollten wir erfahren, wie fair und rational die Teilnehmer die begehrten Güter –die WM-Tickets bzw. 10 EUR je Ticket – aufteilten. In einem zweiten Schritt wurde beobachtet, in wieweit Menschen einen bestimmten Verteilungsvorschlag als gerecht ansehen und diesen akzeptieren oder ablehnen. Zusätzlich integrierten wir einen Intelligenztest und befragten im „ökonomisch unbedarfte“ Erstsemester zu ihrem Entscheidungsverhalten.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    in new window

    This chapter was published in: György Kadocsa (ed.) , , pages 45-58, 2007.
    This item is provided by Óbuda University, Keleti Faculty of Business and Management in its series Proceedings-5th International Conference on Management, Enterprise and Benchmarking (MEB 2007) with number 45-58.
    Handle: RePEc:pkk:meb007:45-58
    Contact details of provider: Postal: 1084 Budapest, Tavaszmezö u. 15-17
    Phone: +36-1-6665208
    Fax: +36-1-6665209
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    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.:

    as in new window
    1. Armin Falk, 2003. "Homo Oeconomicus versus Homo Reciprocans: Ansätze für ein neues Wirtschaftspolitisches Leitbild?," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 4(1), pages 141-172, 02.
    2. Swee Hoon Chuah & Robert Hoffmann & Martin Jones & Geoffrey Williams, 2005. "An Economic Anatomy of Culture: Attitudes and Behaviour in Inter- and Intra- National Ultimatum Game Experiments," Occasional Papers 13, Industrial Economics Division.
    3. Carsten Schmidt & Matthias Sutter & Werner Guth, 2002. "Bargaining outside the lab - a newspaper experiment of a three person-ultimatum game," Artefactual Field Experiments 00050, The Field Experiments Website.
    4. John Kagel & Katherine Wolfe, 2001. "Tests of Fairness Models Based on Equity Considerations in a Three-Person Ultimatum Game," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 203-219, December.
    5. David Dickinson, 2000. "Ultimatum decision-making: A test of reciprocal kindness," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 151-177, March.
    6. Güth, Werner & Schmidt, Carsten & Sutter, Matthias, 2001. "Fairness in the mail and opportunism in the internet: A newspaper experiment on ultimatum bargaining," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 2001,42, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    7. Jonathan D. Cohen, 2005. "The Vulcanization of the Human Brain: A Neural Perspective on Interactions Between Cognition and Emotion," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 3-24, Fall.
    8. Rotemberg, Julio J., 2008. "Minimally acceptable altruism and the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(3-4), pages 457-476, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pkk:meb007:45-58. 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: (Alexandra Vécsey)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.