Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-9klzr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T16:18:34.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The dynamics of responder behavior in ultimatum games: a meta-study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

David J. Cooper  and
E. Glenn Dutcher
David J. Cooper*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2180, USA
E. Glenn Dutcher
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2180, USA
*
e-mail: djcooper@fsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using data aggregated from seven papers that study repeated play in standard ultimatum games with either stranger or absolute stranger matching, we show that the behavior of responders changes with experience. High offers are more likely to be accepted with experience and low offers are more likely to be rejected. At the individual level, there is a negative relationship between the likelihood that a given offer is accepted and the size of the preceding offer. We compare the results with predictions generated by static models of distributional preferences, implicitly dynamic models of preferences with reciprocity, and explicitly dynamic models of adaptive learning. The data is most consistent with models of preferences with reciprocity.

Keywords

Ultimatum gamesOther-regarding preferencesLearning

JEL classification

C78: Bargaining Theory • Matching Theory C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior
Type
Original Paper
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , November 2011 , pp. 519 - 546
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbink, K., Bolton, G., Sadrieh, A., & Tang, F. (2001). Adaptive learning versus punishment in ultimatum bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior, 37(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, L., Rodgers, Y., & Rodriguez, R. (2000). Cultural differences in attitudes toward bargaining. Economics Letters, 69(1), 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J., & Blanchard, E. (2006). Testing subgame perfection apart from fairness in ultimatum games. Experimental Economics, 9(4), 307–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J., & Miller, J. (2002). Giving according to GARP: an experimental test of the consistency of preferences for altruism. Econometrica, 70(2), 737–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J., Castillo, M., & Petrie, R. (2004). Revealing preferences for fairness in ultimatum bargaining (Working Paper).Google Scholar
Armantier, O. (2006). Do wealth differences affect fairness considerations? International Economic Review, 47(2), 391–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, J. (1936). The acquisition of skill: an analysis of learning curves. London: H. M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Blount, S. (1995). When social outcomes aren't fair: the effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(2), 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, G., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: a theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. The American Economic Review, 90(1), 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, G., & Zwick, R. (1995). Anonymity versus punishment in ultimatum bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior, 10(1), 95–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brosig, J., Reichmann, T., & Weimann, J. (2009). Selfish in the end? An investigation of consistency and stability of individual behavior (Working paper). University of Duisberg-Essen.Google Scholar
Buchan, N., Croson, R., & Johnson, E. (2004). When do fair beliefs influence bargaining behavior? Experimental bargaining in Japan and the United States. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Camerer, C., & Ho, T. (1999). Experienced-weighted attraction learning in normal form games. Econometrica, 67(4), 827–874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L. (1999). Raising the stakes in the ultimatum game: experimental evidence from Indonesia. Economic inquiry, 37(1), 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 817–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhuri, A. (2009). Experiments in economics, playing fair with money. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cooper, D., & Kagel, J. (2009). Other regarding preferences: a selective survey of experimental results. In Kagel, J.H., Roth, A.E. (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (Vol. 2) (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Cooper, D., & Stockman, C. (2002). Fairness and learning: an experimental examination. Games and Economic Behavior, 41(1), 26–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, D., Feltovich, N., Roth, A., & Zwick, R. (2003). Relative versus absolute speed of adjustment in strategic environments: responder behavior in ultimatum games. Experimental Economics, 6(2), 181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, J., Friedman, D., & Gjerstad, S. (2007). A tractable model of reciprocity and fairness. Games and Economic Behavior, 59(1), 17–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, J., & Feltovich, N. (1999). Does observation of others affect learning in strategic environments? An experimental study. International Journal of Game Theory, 28(1), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dufwenberg, M., & Kirchsteiger, G. (2004). A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 47(2), 268–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelmann, D., & Strobel, M. (2004). Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments. The American Economic Review, 94(4), 857–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2), 293315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. (1999). Theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U., Fong, C., & Fehr, E. (2009). Fairness, errors and the power of competition. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 72, 527–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gale, J., Binmore, K., & Samuelson, L. (1995). Learning to be imperfect: the ultimatum game. Games and Economic Behavior, 8(1), 56–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwartz, R. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, P. J. (2007). Group reputations, stereotypes, and cooperation in a repeated labor market. The American Economic Review, 97(5), 1751–1773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., & McElreath, R. (2001). In search of homo economicus: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. The American Economic Review, 91(2), 73–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. (1994). Preferences, property rights and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7(3), 346–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirchsteiger, G. (1994). The role of envy in ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 25, 373–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, D. (1998). Modeling altruism and spitefulness in experiments. Review of Economic Dynamics, 1, 593–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J., & Cherry, T. (2000). Learning to accept in ultimatum games: evidence from an experimental design that generates low offers. Experimental Economics, 3(1), 11–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oosterbek, H., Sloof, R., & Van de Kuilen, G. (2004). Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 7(2), 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasnikar, V., & Roth, A. (1992). Considerations of fairness and strategy: experimental data from sequential games. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(3), 865–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A.E. (1995). Bargaining experiments. In Kagel, J. H. & Roth, A. E. (Eds.), The handbook of experimental economics (pp. 253–342). Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A., & Erev, I. (1995). Learning in extensive-form games: experimental data and simple dynamic models in the intermediate term. Games and Economic Behavior, 8(1), 164–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A., Prasnikar, V., Okunofujiwara, M., & Zamir, S. (1991). Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An experimental study. The American Economic Review, 81(5), 1068–1095.Google Scholar
Slonim, R., & Roth, A. (1998). Learning in high stakes ultimatum games: An experiment in the Slovak republic. Econometrica, 66(3), 569–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutter, M., Kocher, M., & Strauß, S. (2003). Bargaining under time pressure in an experimental ultimatum game. Economics Letters, 81(3), 341–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamagishi, T., Horita, Y., Takagishi, H., Shinada, M., Tanida, S., & Cook, K. (2009). The private rejection of unfair offers and emotional commitment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(28), 11520–11523.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winter, E., & Zamir, S. (2005). An experiment with ultimatum bargaining in a changing environment. Japanese Economic Review, 56(3), 363–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar