Skip to main content
Log in

Reinforcement and Directional Learning in the Ultimatum Game with Responder Competition

  • Published:
Experimental Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Demands in the Ultimatum Game in its traditional form with one proposer and one responder are compared with demands in an Ultimatum Game with responder competition. In this modified form one proposer faces three responders who can accept or reject the split of the pie. Initial demands in both ultimatum games are quite similar, however in the course of the experiment, demands in the ultimatum game with responder competition are significantly higher than in the traditional case with repeated random matching. Individual round-to-round changes of choices that are consistent with directional learning are the driving forces behind the differences between the two learning curves and cannot be tracked by an adjustment process in response to accumulated reinforcements. The importance of combining reinforcement and directional learning is addressed. Moreover, learning transfer between the two ultimatum games is analyzed.

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

  • Abbink, K., Bolton, G.E., Sadrieh, A., and Tang, F.-F. (2001). “Adaptive Learning versus Punishment in Ultimatum Bargaining.” Games and Economic Behavior. 37(1), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, G. and Erev, I. (2001). “On Adaptation, Maximization, and Reinforcement Learning Among Cognitive Strategies.” Mimeo, Technion, Haifa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, G.E. (1998). “Strong and Weak Equity Effects: Evidence, Significance and Origins.” In D. Budescu, I. E. and R. Zwick (eds.), Games and Human Behavior, Essays in Honor of Amnon Rapoport, Hillsdale, NJ.

  • Bolton, G.E. and Ockenfels, A. (2000). “ERC-A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition.” American Economic Review. 90(1), 166–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, G.E. and Zwick, R. (1995). “Anonymity versus Punishment in Ultimatum Bargaining.” Games and Economic Behavior. 10, 95–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cachon, G.P. and Camerer, C. (1996). “The Sunk Cost Fallacy, Forward Induction and Behavior in Coordination Games.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 111, 165–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C.F. and Ho, T.H. (1999). “Experience-Weighted Attraction Learning in Games: AUnifying Approach.” Econometrica. 67, 827–874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C.F., Ho, T.H., and Wang, X. (2002). “Individual Differences in EWA Learning with Partial Payoff Information.” Mimeo.

  • Cason, T. and Friedman, D. (1997). “Price Formation in Single Call Markets.” Econometrica. 65(2), 311–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, V.P. (1995). “Adaptive Dynamics in Coordination Games.” Econometrica. 63, 103–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, J. and Nagel, R. (1997). “On the Robustness of Behavior in Experimental Beauty-Contest Games.” Economic Journal. 107, 1684–1700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erev, I. and Rapoport, A. (1998). “Coordination, 'Magic,' and Reinforcement Learning in a Market Entry Game.” Games and Economic Behavior. 23, 146–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erev, I. and Roth, A. (Unpublished). “Adaptation and Imitation in Experimental Games.” Technical Report.

  • Erev, I. and Roth, A.E. (1998a). “Predicting How People Play Games: Reinforcing Learning in Experimental Games with Unique, Mixed Strategy Equilibria.” American Economic Review. 88(4), 848–881.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erev, I. and Roth, A.E. (1998b). “On the Role of Reinforcement Learning.” In D. Budescu, I.E. and R. Zwick (eds.), Games and Human Behavior, Essays in Honor of Amnon Rapoport, Hillsdale, NJ.

  • Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K. (1999). “A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 114, 817–868.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gale, J., Binmore, K.G., and Samuelson, L. (1995). “Learning to be Imperfect: The Ultimatum Game.” Games and Economic Behavior. 8, 56–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M.L. and Holyoak, K.J. (1980). “Analogical Problem Solving.” Cognitive Psychology. 12, 306–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M.L. and Holyoak, K.J. (1983). “Schema Induction and Analogical Transfer.” Cognitive Psychology. 15, 1–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glassnapp, D. and Poggio, J. (1985). Essentials of Statistical Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosskopf, B. (2001). “Merging Reinforcement and Directional Learning-A Generalized Model.” Mimeo.

  • Grosskopf, B., Erev, I., and Yechiam, E. (2001). “Foregone with the Wind.” Mimeo.

  • Güth, W., Marchand, N., and Rulliere, J.-L. (1997). “On the Reliability of Reciprocal Fairness-An Experimental Study.” Mimeo.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, T., Camerer, C., and Weigelt, K. (1998). “Iterated Dominance and Iterated Best Response in Experimental p-Beauty Contests.” American Economic Review. 88(4), 947–969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huck, S., Normann, H.-T., and Oechssler, J. (1999). “Learning in Cournot-Oligopoly-An Experiment.” Economic Journal. 109(454), C80–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagel, J. and Levin, D. (1999). “Common Value Auctions with Insider Information.” Econometrica. 67(5), 1219–1238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimble, G.A. (1961). Hilgard and Marquis' Conditioning and Learning. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuon, B. (1994). Two-person Bargaining Experiments with Incomplete Information. Springer Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems (No. 412). Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D.M., Moore, D.A., and Bazerman, M.H. (1997). “Ultimatum Bargaining with a Group: Underestimating the Importance of the Decision Rule.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 69, 87–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitzkewitz, M. and Nagel, R. (1993). “Experimental Results on Ultimatum Games with Incomplete Information.” International Journal of Game Theory. 22, 171–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mookherjee, D. and Sopher, B. (1997). “Learning and Decision Costs in Experimental Constant Sum Games.” Games and Economic Behavior. 19, 97–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, R. and Tang, F.F. (1998). “Experimental Results on the Centipede Game in Normal Form: An Investigation on Learning.” Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 42, 356–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, R. and Vriend, N. (1999). “An Experimental Study of Adaptive Behavior in an Oligopolistic Market Game.” Journal of Evolutionary Economics. 9, 27–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D.N. and Salomon, G. (1988). “Teaching for Transfer.” Educational Leadership. 46, 22–32.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, A.E. (1995). “Bargaining Experiments.” In J. Kagel and A.E. Roth (eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton University Press.

  • Salomon, G. and Perkins, D.N. (1989). “Rocky Roads to Transfer: Rethinking Mechanisms of a Neglected Phenomenon.” Education Psychologist. 24, 113–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selten, R. and Buchta, J. (1998). “Experimental Sealed Bid First Price Auction with Directly Observed Bid Functions.” In D. Budescu, I.E. and R. Zwick (eds.), Games and Human Behavior, Essays in Honor of Amnon Rapoport, Hillsdale, NJ.

  • Selten, R. and Stoecker, R. (1986). “End Behavior in Sequences of Finite Prisoner's Dilemma Supergames: A Learning Theory Approach.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 7(1), 47–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slonim, R. and Roth, A.E. (1998). “Financial Incentives and Learning in Ultimatum and Market Games: An Experiment in the Slovak Republic.” Econometrica. 66(3), 569–596.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grosskopf, B. Reinforcement and Directional Learning in the Ultimatum Game with Responder Competition. Experimental Economics 6, 141–158 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025305020751

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025305020751

Navigation