Fairness in Ultimatum Games with Asymmetric Information and Asymmetric Payoffs
نویسندگان
چکیده
Players bargained over chips with different exchange rates and with different information regarding these exchange rates. Offers generally reflected a self-serving definition of fairness. There is ample evidence that relative income shares entered players utility functions, resulting in predictable variations in both rejection rates and offers. However, offers were significantly more likely to be rejected when first-movers intentionally offered unequal moneysplits compared to when comparable offers were clearly unintentional. When both players were fully informed and first-movers had higher exchange rates, conflicting fairness norms developed, resulting in unusually high rejection rates. Journal of Economic Literature Classification Numbers: C72, C78, C92. © 1996 Academic Press, Inc.
منابع مشابه
Inequality Aversion in Ultimatum Games with Asymmetric Conflict Points -- A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis --
Assuming inequality averse subjects as modeled by Fehr and Schmidt (1999) or in the ERC model by Bolton and Ockenfels (2000) in ultimatum games with asymmetric conflict payoffs allows to make predictions especially concerning responder acceptance thresholds. These predictions are tested in a laboratory experiment eliciting proposer offers and respondent’s acceptance thresholds using the strateg...
متن کاملInformation in Ultimatum Games: An Experimental Study
This study reports on an experiment using variations of the ultimatum game. The experiment controls the amount and type of information known to the responder in the game. In two treatments, she knows both the absolute (money) and relative (fairness) payoffs from an offer. In the other two, she knows either only the absolute or only the relative payoffs. The predictions of four models for these ...
متن کاملDistributive and reciprocal fairness: What can we learn from the heterogeneity of social preferences?
This study evaluates people’s concerns for distributive fairness (equality of outcomes and payoffs to those worse-off) and reciprocal fairness (receiving what one is due based on one’s past actions) using dictator, ultimatum, and trust games. In the dictator games we classify individuals’ preferences as self-interested, inequity averse, efficiency maximizing, or compassionate social surplus max...
متن کاملCooperative Benefit and Cost Games under Fairness Concerns
Solution concepts in cooperative games are based on either cost games or benefit games. Although cost games and benefit games are strategically equivalent, that is not the case in general for solution concepts. Motivated by this important observation, a new property called invariance property with respect to benefit/cost allocation is introduced in this paper. Since such a property can be regar...
متن کاملBargaining Structure, Fairness, and Efficiency
Experiments with the ultimatum game—where one party can make a take-it-or-leave-it offer to a second party on how to split a pie—illustrate that conventional game theory has been wrong in its predictions regarding the simplest of bargaining settings: Even when one party has enormous bargaining power, she may be able to extract all the surplus from trade, because the second party will reject gro...
متن کامل