IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

A Test for Comparative Income Effects in an Ultimatum Bargaining Experiment

Listed author(s):
  • John Carter


    (Department of Economics, College of the Holy Cross)

  • Shannon A. McAloon

    (Department of Economics, College of the Holy Cross)

Registered author(s):

    We test Bolton's (1991) comparative bargaining model by conducting an ultimatum experiment with two primary treatments distinguished only by their payoff rules. In the first treatment subjects play a series of basic ultimatum games. Because responders can increase comparative income by rejecting offers deemed too low, outcomes are expected to diverge from extreme divisions in the direction of equality. In the second treatment subjects play a series of ultimatum tournaments. Because rejection of low offers can only decrease comparative income, extreme splits are expected. Hence, the comparative model predicts that offers will be lower and near zero in the second treatment. The results of our experiment do not support the comparative model. Mean offers in the ultimatum touraments are not extreme, nor are they significantly lower than those in the basic ultimatum games.

    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:
    File Function: Publication-Status: Published in Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Vol. 31:3, December 1996, pp. 369-380.
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 9401.

    in new window

    Length: 47 pages
    Date of creation: Sep 1994
    Handle: RePEc:hcx:wpaper:9401
    Contact details of provider: Phone: (508)793-3362
    Fax: (508) 793-3708
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    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:hcx:wpaper:9401. 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: (Victor Matheson)

    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.