Fairness in an Ultimatum Game
- 1 Accounting, Taxation and Legal Studies in Business, Hofstra University, Hempstead, USA
- 2 Department of Economics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
- 3 Accounting and Financial Management Services, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
- 4 Accounting and Financial Management Services, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
Abstract
We present a controlled laboratory environment in which we use an ultimatum game to generate two endogenous fairness indices. We use these as alternatives to the more conventional exogenous measure, the offer index, in a model of offer-acceptance which includes measures of social value orientations and risk attitudes as variables for explaining the acceptance or rejections of offers in an ultimatum game. In particular we are interested in providing an explanatory model which can support situations in which the likelihood to accept unfair offers (as measured by the offer index) will exceed the likelihood of rejecting a fair offer (again, as measured by the offer index). The offer index in the ultimatum game setting is the amount offered by a sender divided by the total endowment of the sender. Our endogenous fairness indices meet our condition of the likelihood of acceptance of an unfair offer exceeding the likelihood of rejecting a fair offer even though the explanatory power of the offer-acceptance models with the endogenous fairness indices is not significantly different from that with the exogenous fairness index.
- Güth, W. and Kocher, M.G. (2014) Thirty Years of Ultimatum Bargaining Experiments: Motives, Variations, and a Survey of the Recent Literature. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 108, 396-409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.06.006
- Güth, W., Schmittberbger, R. and Schwarze (1982) An Experimental Analysis of Ultimatum Bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 367-388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7
- Azar, O.H., Lahav, Y. and Voslinsky, A. (2015) Beliefs and Social Behavior in a Multi-Period Ultimatum Game. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00029
- Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K.M. (2003) Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity—Evidence and Economic Applications, Advances in Economics and Econometrics. In: Dewatripont, M., Hansen, L.P. and Turnovsky, S.J., Eds., Econometric Society Monographs, Eighth World Congress, Vol. 1, 208-257.
- Carpenter, J.P. (2003) Is Fairness Used Instrumentally? Evidence from Sequential Bargaining. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 467-489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00194-0
- Kanagaretnam, K., Mestelman, S., Nainar, S.M.K. and Shehata, M. (2009) The Impact of Social Value Orientation and Risk Attitudes on Trust and Reciprocity. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 368-380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2008.12.003
- Brosig, J., Weimann, J. and Yang, C.-L. (2003) The Hot versus Cold Effect in a Simple Bargaining Experiment. Experimental Economics, 6, 75-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024204826499
- Güth, W., Schmidt, C. and Sutter, M. (2003) Fairness in the Mail and Opportunism in the Internet: A Newspaper Experiment on Ultimatum Bargaining. German Economic Review, 42, 243-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0475.00081
- Brandts, J. and Charness, G. (2011) The Strategy versus the Direct-Response Method: A First Survey of Experimental Comparisons. Experimental Economics, 14, 375-398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10683-011-9272-x
- Kanagaretnam, K., Mestelman, S., Nainar, S.M.K. and Shehata, M. (2006) Trust, Reciprocity and the Roles of Sex, Value Orientation and Risk Attitudes in an Investment Game. Department of Economics Working Paper 2006-04, Manuscript, 42 p. www.economics.mcmaster.ca/documents/department-working-papers/2006-04
- Becker, G.M., DeGroot, M.H. and Marschak, J. (1964) Measuring Utility by a Single-Response Sequential Method. Behavioral Science, 9, 226-232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830090304