International Journal of Game Theory

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 511–523 | Cite as

Strategic risk and response time across games

  • Pablo Brañas-Garza
  • Debrah MelosoEmail author
  • Luis Miller
Original Paper


Experimental data for two types of bargaining games are used to study the role of strategic risk in the decision making process that takes place when subjects play a game only once. The bargaining games are the ultimatum game (UG) and the yes-or-no game (YNG). Strategic risk in a game stems from the effect on one player’s payoff of the behavior of other players. In the UG this risk is high, while it is nearly absent in the YNG. In studying the decision making process of subjects we use the time elapsed before a choice is made (response time) as a proxy for amount of thought or introspection. We find that response times are on average larger in the UG than in the YNG, indicating a positive correlation between strategic risk and introspection. In both games the behavior of subjects with large response times is more dispersed than that of subjects with small response times. In the UG larger response time is associated with less generous and thus riskier behavior, while it is associated with more generous behavior in the YNG.


Response time Ultimatum game Yes-or-no game Strategic risk 

Supplementary material

182_2016_541_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (376 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 376 KB)


  1. Arad A, Rubinstein A (2012) Multi-dimensional iterative reasoning in action: the case of the colonel blotto game. J Econ Behav Organ 84(2):571–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Avrahami J, Güth W, Hertwig R, Kareev Y, Otsubo H (2013) Learning (not) to yield: an experimental study of evolving ultimatum game behavior. J Soc Econ 47:47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Camerer C, Ho T-H, Chong J-K (2004) A cognitive hierarchy model of games. Q J Econ 119(3):861–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fischbacher U (2007) z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Exp Econ 10:171–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fischbacher U, Hertwig R, Bruhin A (2013) How to model heterogeneity in costly punishment: insights from responders’ response times. J Behav Decis Mak 26(5):462–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gehrig T, Guth W, Levati V, Levinsky R, Ockenfels A, Uske T, Weiland T (2007) Buying a pig in a poke: an experimental study of unconditional veto power. J Econ Psychol 28:692–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greiner B (2004) An online recruitment system for economic experiments. In: Kremer K, Macho V (eds) Forschung und wissenschaftliches Rechnen 2003. GWDG Bericht 63. Ges. fur WissGoogle Scholar
  8. Güth W, Kirchkamp O (2012) Will you accept without knowing what? The yes-no game in the newspaper and in the lab. Exp Econ 15:656–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Güth W, Kocher M (2014) More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature. J Econ Behav Organ 108:396–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hauk E, Nagel R (2001) Choice of partners in multiple two-person prisoner’s dilemma games. J Confl Resolut 45(6):770–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jensen A (2006) Clocking the mind: mental chronometry and individual differences. Elsevier, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  12. Knoch Daria, Fehr Ernst (2007) Resisting the power of temptations. The right prefrontal cortex and self-control. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1104:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Luce RD (1991) Response times: their role in inferring elementary mental organization. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Nagel R (1995) Unraveling in guessing games: an experimental study. Am Econ Rev 85(5):1313–1326Google Scholar
  15. Piovesan M, Wengstrom E (2009) Fast or fair? A study of response times. Econ Lett 105:193–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rand D, Greene J, Nowak M (2012) Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature 489:427–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rubinstein A (2007) Instinctive and cognitive reasoning: a study of response times. Econ J 117:1243–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rubinstein A (2008) Comments on neuroeconomics. Econ Philos 24:485–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Selten R (1967) Die strategiemethode zur erforschung des eingeschränkt rationalen verhaltens im rahmen eines oligopolexperiments. In: Sauermann H (ed) In Beiträge zur experimentellen Wirtschaftsforschung, vol I, pp 136–168. J.C. Mohr (Siebeck)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pablo Brañas-Garza
    • 1
  • Debrah Meloso
    • 2
    Email author
  • Luis Miller
    • 3
  1. 1.Middlesex University Business SchoolHendon Campus, The BurroughsLondonUK
  2. 2.Toulouse Business SchoolToulouseFrance
  3. 3.School of Economics and BusinessUniversity of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)BilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations