IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bfi/wpaper/2026-29.html

How does AI distribute the pie? Large Language Models and the Ultimatum Game

Author

Listed:
  • Douglas K.G. Araujo

    (Banco Central do Brasil)

  • Harald Uhlig

    (University of Chicago, CEPR and NBER)

Abstract

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly tasked with autonomous decisionmaking, understanding their behavior in strategic settings is crucial. We investigate the choices of various LLMs in the Ultimatum Game, a setting where human behavior notably deviates from theoretical rationality. We conduct experiments varying the stake size and the nature of the opponent (Human vs. AI) across both Proposer and Responder roles. Three key results emerge. First, LLM behavior is heterogeneous but predictable when conditioning on stake size and player types. Second, while some models approximate the rational benchmark and others mimic human social preferences, a distinct “altruistic†mode emerges where LLMs propose hyper-fair distributions (greater than 50%). Third, LLM Proposers forgo a large share of total payoff, and an even larger share when the Responder is human. These findings highlight the need for careful testing before deploying AI agents in economic settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Douglas K.G. Araujo & Harald Uhlig, 2026. "How does AI distribute the pie? Large Language Models and the Ultimatum Game," Working Papers 2026-29, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:bfi:wpaper:2026-29
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.bfi.uchicago.edu/RePEc/pdfs/BFI_WP_2026-29.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ayato Kitadai & Sinndy Dayana Rico Lugo & Yudai Tsurusaki & Yusuke Fukasawa & Nariaki Nishino, 2024. "Can AI with High Reasoning Ability Replicate Human-like Decision Making in Economic Experiments?," Papers 2406.11426, arXiv.org.
    2. Iñaki Aldasoro & Ajit Desai, 2025. "Money Talks: AI Agents for Cash Management in Payment Systems," Staff Working Papers 25-35, Bank of Canada.
    3. Fulin Guo, 2023. "GPT in Game Theory Experiments," Papers 2305.05516, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2023.
    4. Hessel Oosterbeek & Randolph Sloof & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2004. "Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 171-188, June.
    5. Iñaki Aldasoro & Ajit Desai, 2025. "AI agents for cash management in payment systems," BIS Working Papers 1310, Bank for International Settlements.
    6. Anton Korinek & Jai Vipra, 2025. "Concentrating intelligence: scaling and market structure in artificial intelligence," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 40(121), pages 225-256.
    7. Ferraz, Vinícius & Olah, Tamas & Sazedul, Ratin & Schmidt, Robert & Schwieren, Christiane, 2025. "When Artificial Minds Negotiate: Dark Personality and the Ultimatum Game in Large Language Models," Working Papers 0768, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    8. 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.
    9. Ken Binmore, 1994. "Game Theory and the Social Contract, Volume 1: Playing Fair," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262023636, December.
    10. Fernando Perez-Cruz & Hyun Song Shin, 2025. "Putting AI agents through their paces on general tasks," BIS Working Papers 1245, Bank for International Settlements.
    11. Qiaozhu Mei & Yutong Xie & Walter Yuan & Matthew O. Jackson, 2024. "A Turing test of whether AI chatbots are behaviorally similar to humans," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 121(9), pages 2313925121-, February.
    12. Jean-Christian Tisserand, 2014. "Ultimatum game: A meta-analysis of the past three decades of experimental research," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 0802032, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    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. Gonzalo Ballestero & Hadi Hosseini & Samarth Khanna & Ran I. Shorrer, 2026. "Strategic Algorithmic Monoculture: Experimental Evidence from Coordination Games," Papers 2604.09502, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2026.

    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. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    2. Alexander Lenger & Stephan Wolf & Nils Goldschmidt, 2021. "Choosing inequality: how economic security fosters competitive regimes," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(2), pages 315-346, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Liqi Zhu & Gerd Gigerenzer & Gang Huangfu, 2013. "Psychological Traces of China's Socio-Economic Reforms in the Ultimatum and Dictator Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-6, August.
    5. Fernando P Santos & Jorge M Pacheco & Ana Paiva & Francisco C Santos, 2017. "Structural power and the evolution of collective fairness in social networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-14, April.
    6. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    7. Ainhoa Jaramillo Gutiérrez & Nikolaos Georgantzis & Aurora García Gallego & Miguel Ginés Vilar, 2007. "Cultural And Risk-Related Determinants Of Gender Differences In Ultimatum Bargaining," Working Papers. Serie AD 2007-08, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    8. Fabian Dvorak & Regina Stumpf & Sebastian Fehrler & Urs Fischbacher, 2024. "Generative AI Triggers Welfare-Reducing Decisions in Humans," Papers 2401.12773, arXiv.org.
    9. Thorsten Chmura & Christoph Engel & Markus Englerth, 2013. "Selfishness As a Potential Cause of Crime. A Prison Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2013_05, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    10. Jaime Iranzo & Luis M Floría & Yamir Moreno & Angel Sánchez, 2012. "Empathy Emerges Spontaneously in the Ultimatum Game: Small Groups and Networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-8, September.
    11. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Hasan, Hamid & Ejaz, Nauman, 2013. "Testing for Differences across Genders: A Replication of Ultimatum Game at International Islamic University, Islamabad," MPRA Paper 44923, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. 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.
    15. Mirko Duradoni & Stefania Collodi & Serena Coppolino Perfumi & Andrea Guazzini, 2021. "Reviewing Stranger on the Internet: The Role of Identifiability through “Reputation” in Online Decision Making," Future Internet, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, April.
    16. Arshad Ali Javed & Patrick T.I. Lam & Albert P.C. Chan, 2014. "Change negotiation in public-private partnership projects through output specifications: an experimental approach based on game theory," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(4), pages 323-348, April.
    17. 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.
    18. Jörg Rieskamp & Peter Todd, 2006. "The Evolution of Cooperative Strategies for Asymmetric Social Interactions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 69-111, February.
    19. Oren Bar-Gill & Christoph Engel, 2016. "Bargaining in the Absence of Property Rights: An Experiment," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(2), pages 477-495.
    20. Carsten Vogt, 2016. "Climate Coalition Formation When Players are Heterogeneous and Inequality Averse," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(1), pages 33-59, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:bfi:wpaper:2026-29. 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: Toni Shears The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Toni Shears to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mfichus.html .

    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.