Skip to main content
Log in

Learning to Accept in Ultimatum Games: Evidence from an Experimental Design that Generates Low Offers

  • Published:
Experimental Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Focusing on responder behavior, we report panel data findings from both low and high stakes ultimatum bargaining games. Whereas Slonim and Roth (1998) find that offers are rejected fairly equally across rounds in both low and high stakes games, we find that learning does take place, but only when there is sufficient money on the table. The disparate results can be reconciled when one considers the added power that our experimental design provides-detecting subtle temporal differences in responder behavior requires a data generation process that induces a significant number of proportionally low offers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bolton, G. (1991). “A Comparative Model of Bargaining: Theory and Evidence.” American Economic Review. 81, 1096–1136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain, G. (1980). “Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data.” Review of Economic Studies. 47, 225–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherry, T.L. and List, J.A. (2000). “Self-interest in Bargaining Games when Initial Wealth is Earned.” Working paper, University of Central Florida.

  • Conlisk, J. (1996). “Why Bounded Rationality?” Journal of Economic Literature. 34, 669–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J., Savin, N.E., and Sefton, M. (1994). “Replicability, Fairness and Pay in Experiments with Simple Bargaining Games.” Games and Economic Behavior. 6(3), 347–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fudenberg, D. and Levine, D. (1997). “Measuring Players' Losses in Experimental Games.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 112, 507–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guth, W., Schmittberger, R., and Schwartz, R. (1982). “An Experimental Analysis of Ultimatum Bargaining.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 3, 367–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, E., McCabe, K.A., Shachat, K., and Smith, V.L. (1994). “Preferences, Property Rights and Anonymity in Bargaining Games.” Games and Economic Behavior. 7(3), 346–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, E., McCabe, K.A., and Smith, V.L. (1996a). “On Expectations and the Monetary Stakes in Ultimatum Games.” International Journal of Game Theory. 25(3), 289–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, E., McCabe, K.A., and Smith, V.L. (1996b). “Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games.” American Economic Review. 86(3), 653–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • List, J.A. and Lucking-Reilly, D. (forthcoming). “Demand Reduction in a Multi-Unit Auction: Evidence from a Sportscard Field Experiment.” American Economic Review.

  • List, J.A. and Shogren, J.F. (1998). “Experimental Calibration of the Difference Between Actual and Hypothetical Reported Valuations.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 37(2), 193–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, A.E. and Erev, I. (1995). “Learning in Extensive-Form Games: Experimental Data and Simple Dynamic Models in the Intermediate Term.” Games and Economic Behavior. 8, 164–212.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

List, J.A., Cherry, T.L. Learning to Accept in Ultimatum Games: Evidence from an Experimental Design that Generates Low Offers. Experimental Economics 3, 11–29 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009989907258

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009989907258

Navigation