IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v115y2012i3p356-358.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision-making in competitive framings—Strategic behavior of chess players in mini-ultimatum game chess puzzles

Author

Listed:
  • Bühren, Christoph
  • Frank, Björn
  • Krabel, Stefan
  • Werner, Alexander

Abstract

We introduce a competitive framing in the mini-ultimatum game utilizing chess puzzles. Therein, our chess playing participants accept low offers significantly more often compared to a neutral framing. We conclude that in familiar competitive surroundings egoistic behavior is more acceptable.

Suggested Citation

  • Bühren, Christoph & Frank, Björn & Krabel, Stefan & Werner, Alexander, 2012. "Decision-making in competitive framings—Strategic behavior of chess players in mini-ultimatum game chess puzzles," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(3), pages 356-358.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:115:y:2012:i:3:p:356-358
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2011.12.080
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176511006033
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.12.080?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Telser, L G, 1995. "The Ultimatum Game and the Law of Demand," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(433), pages 1519-1523, November.
    2. Armin Falk & Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2003. "On the Nature of Fair Behavior," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(1), pages 20-26, January.
    3. Ignacio Palacios-Huerta & Oscar Volij, 2009. "Field Centipedes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1619-1635, September.
    4. Steven D. Levitt & John A. List & Sally E. Sadoff, 2011. "Checkmate: Exploring Backward Induction among Chess Players," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 975-990, April.
    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. Hildenbrand, Andreas, 2013. "Is a firm a firm? A Stackelberg experiment," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 7, pages 1-26.
    2. Tripathi, Sanjeev, 2016. "Does odd or even make a difference," IIMA Working Papers WP2016-03-15, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    3. C. Mónica Capra, 2019. "Understanding decision processes in guessing games: a protocol analysis approach," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 123-135, August.
    4. 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.
    5. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2020. "Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics (RM/19/029-revised-)," Research Memorandum 014, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).

    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. Paolo Crosetto & Marco Mantovani, 2012. "Availability of Information and Representation Effects in the Centipede Game," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-051, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    2. Konrad Grabiszewski & Alex Horenstein, 2022. "Profiling dynamic decision-makers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-22, April.
    3. Baghestanian, Sascha & Frey, Seth, 2016. "GO figure: Analytic and strategic skills are separable," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 71-80.
    4. Gerdes, Christer & Gränsmark, Patrik & Rosholm, Michael, 2011. "Chicken or Checkin'? Rational Learning in Repeated Chess Games," IZA Discussion Papers 5862, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Ernesto Dal Bó & Pedro Dal Bó & Erik Eyster, 2018. "The Demand for Bad Policy when Voters Underappreciate Equilibrium Effects," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(2), pages 964-998.
    6. Paolo Crosetto & Marco Mantovani, 2018. "Representation effects in the centipede game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-13, October.
    7. Bernardo García-Pola & Nagore Iriberri & Jaromír Kovářík, 2020. "Hot versus cold behavior in centipede games," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(2), pages 226-238, December.
    8. Peter Backus & Maria Cubel & Matej Guid & Santiago Sanchez-Pages & Enrique Lopez Manas, 2016. "Gender, Competition and Performance: Evidence from Real Tournaments," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1605, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    9. repec:zbw:rwirep:0360 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Martijn J. van den Assem & Dennie van Dolder & Richard H. Thaler, 2012. "Split or Steal? Cooperative Behavior When the Stakes Are Large," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 2-20, January.
    11. García-Pola, Bernardo & Iriberri, Nagore & Kovářík, Jaromír, 2020. "Non-equilibrium play in centipede games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 391-433.
    12. Etan A. Green & Justin M. Rao & David Rothschild, 2019. "A Sharp Test of the Portability of Expertise," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 2820-2831, June.
    13. Khan, M. Ali & Yu, Haomiao & Zhang, Zhixiang, 2015. "On the centipede game with a social norm," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 16-19.
    14. Andreas Nicklisch, 2004. "Express Yourself: The Price of Fairness in a Simple Distribution Game," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2004-36, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    15. Künn, Steffen & Seel, Christian & Zegners, Dainis, 2020. "Cognitive Performance in the Home Office - Evidence from Professional Chess," Research Memorandum 021, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    16. Benoît, Jean-Pierre & Dubra, Juan, 2014. "A Theory of Rational Attitude Polarization," MPRA Paper 60129, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Dan Levin & Luyao Zhang, 2022. "Bridging Level-K to Nash Equilibrium," Papers 2202.12292, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2022.
    18. Yuval Salant & Jörg L. Spenkuch, 2021. "Complexity and Choice," CESifo Working Paper Series 9239, CESifo.
    19. Gränsmark, Patrik, 2012. "Masters of our time: Impatience and self-control in high-level chess games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 179-191.
    20. Spenkuch, Jörg, 2014. "Backward Induction in the Wild: Evidence from the U.S. Senate," MPRA Paper 58766, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Thomas Dohmen & Hendrik Sonnabend, 2018. "Further Field Evidence for Minimax Play," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 19(3), pages 371-388, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Mini-ultimatum game; Framing; Chess-puzzle;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty

    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:ecolet:v:115:y:2012:i:3:p:356-358. 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/ecolet .

    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.