Advertisement

Abstract

An important development in economics is the emergence of experimental economics, and Werner Güth has been one of its pioneers. Moving from armchair theorizing to controlled laboratory experiments may be as important a step in the development of economic theory as it once was for the natural sciences to move from Aristotelian scholastic speculation to modern empirical science.1

Keywords

Game Form Dictator Game Sequential Equilibrium Monetary Payoff Material Payoff 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Asheim, G. (2002) ‘On the Epistemic Foundation for Backward Induction’, Mathematical Social Sciences, 44, 121–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aumann, R. (1995) ‘Backward Induction and Common Knowledge of Rationality’, Games and Economic Behavior, 8, 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aumann, R. and Brandenburger, A. (1995) ‘Epistemic Conditions for Nash Equilibrium’, Econometrica, 63, 1161–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Porath, E. (1997) ‘Rationality, Nash Equilibrium, and Backwards Induction in Perfect Information Games’, Review of Economic Studies, 64, 23–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binmore, K, Shaked, A. and Sutton, J. (1985) ‘Testing Noncooperative Bargaining Theory: A Preliminary Study’, American Economic Review, 75, 1178–80.Google Scholar
  6. Binmore, K, McCarthy, J., Ponti, G., Samuelson, L. and Shaked, A. (2002) ‘A Backward Induction Experiment’, Journal of Economic Theory, 104, 48–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolton, G. and Ockenfels, A. (2000) ‘ECR: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity and Competition’, American Economic Review, 90, 166–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolton, G. and Zwick, R. (1995) ‘Anonymity versus Punishment in Ultimatum Bargaining’, Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 95–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brandts, J. and Solà, C. (2001) ‘Reference Points and Negative Reciprocity in Simple Sequential Games’, Games and Economic Behavior, 36, 138–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Camerer, C. (2003) Behavioral Game Theory, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Costa-Gomes, M., Crawford, V. and Broseta, B. (2001) ‘Cognition and behavior in Normal-form Games: An Experimental Study’, Econometrica, 69, 1193–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falk A., Fehr, E. and Fischbacher, U. (2003) ‘On the Nature of Fair Behavior’, Economic Inquiry, 41, 20–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fehr, E. and Gächter, S. (2003) ‘Altruistic Punishment in Humans’, Nature, 415, 137–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K. (1999) ‘A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glaser, E., Laibson, D., Scheinkman, J. and Soutter, C. (2000) ‘Measuring trust’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, August, 811–46.Google Scholar
  16. Güth, W. and Tietz, R. (1990) ‘Ultimatum Bargaining Behavior: A Survey and Comparison of Experimental Results’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 11, 417–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Güth, W., Schmittberger, R. and Schwarze, B. (1982) ‘An Experimental Analysis of Ultimatum Bargaining’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 376–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson, E., Camerer, C. Sen, S. and Rymon, T. (2002) ‘Detecting Failures of Backward Induction: Monitoring Information Search in Sequential Bargaining’, Journal of Economic Theory, 104, 16–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kagel, J. and Roth, A. (eds) (1995) The Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kuhn, H. (1950) ‘Extensive Games’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36, 570–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhn, H. (1953) ‘Extensive Games and the Problem of Information’, Annals of Mathematics Studies, 28, 193–216.Google Scholar
  22. Levine, D. (1998) ‘Modelling Altruism and Spitefulness in Experiments’, Review of Economic Dynamics, 1, 593–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mertens, J.-F. and Zamir, S. (1985) ‘Formulation of Bayesian Analysis for Games with Incomplete Information’, International Journal of Game Theory, 10, 619–32.Google Scholar
  24. Ochs, J. and Roth, A. (1989) ‘An Experimental Study of Sequential Bargaining’, American Economic Review, 79, 355–84.Google Scholar
  25. Rabin, M. (1993) ‘Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics’, American Economic Review, Vol. 83, 1281–302.Google Scholar
  26. Ray, I. and Zhou, L. (2001) ‘Game Theory via Revealed Preferences’, Games and Economic Behavior, 37, 415–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reny, P. J. (1993) ‘Common Belief and the Theory of Games with Perfect Information’, Journal of Economic Theory, 59, 257–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ritzberger, K. (2002) Foundations of Non-Cooperative Game Theory, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Sprumont, Y. (2000) ‘On the Testable Implications of Collective Choice Theories’, Journal of Economic Theory, 93, 205–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tan, T. and Werlang, S. (1988) ‘The Bayesian Foundations of Solution Concepts of Games’, Journal of Economic Theory, 45, 370–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zamir, S. (2000) ‘Rationality and Emotions in Ultimatum Bargaining’, Mimeo, The Hebrew University and LEI/CREST, Paris.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Jörgen W. Weibull 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörgen W. Weibull

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations