IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/expeco/v3y2000i1p5-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Exchange Context on the Activation of Equity in Ultimatum Games

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth Hoffman
  • Kevin McCabe
  • Vernon Smith

Abstract

In this paper we report the results of additional exchange ultimatum game experiments conducted at the same time as the exchange ultimatum game experiments reported in Hoffman et al. (Games and Economic Behavior, 7(3), pp. 346–380, 1994). In these additional experiments, we use instructions to change an impersonal exchange situation to a personal exchange situation. To do this, we prompt sellers to consider what choices their buyers will make. Game theory would predict that thinking about the situation would lead sellers to make smaller offers to buyers. In contrast, we find a significant increase in seller offers to buyers. This result suggests that encouraging sellers to thinking about buyer choices focuses their attention on the strategic interaction with humans who think they way they do in personal exchange situations, and who may punish them for unacceptable behavior, and not on the logic of the game theoretic structure of the problem. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth Hoffman & Kevin McCabe & Vernon Smith, 2000. "The Impact of Exchange Context on the Activation of Equity in Ultimatum Games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(1), pages 5-9, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:expeco:v:3:y:2000:i:1:p:5-9
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1009925123187
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1009925123187
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1009925123187?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hoffman Elizabeth & McCabe Kevin & Shachat Keith & Smith Vernon, 1994. "Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 346-380, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bart J. Wilson, 2012. "Contra Private Fairness," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 407-435, April.
    2. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    3. Novarese, Marco & Chelini, Chiara & Spada, Anna & Ambrosino, Angela & Trigona, Carla, 2010. "An Experimental Investigation on Learning and Context Effects," MPRA Paper 27807, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Vernon Smith, 2002. "Method in Experiment: Rhetoric and Reality," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(2), pages 91-110, October.
    5. Grimalda, Gianluca & Kar, Anirban & Proto, Eugenio, 2008. "The Impact of (In)Equality of Opportunities on Wealth Distribution : Evidence from Ultimatum Games," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 843, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    6. Klaus Abbink & Heike Hennig-Schmidt, 2006. "Neutral versus loaded instructions in a bribery experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 103-121, June.
    7. Lusk, Jayson L. & Hudson, Darren, 2004. "Effect of monitor-subject cheap talk on ultimatum game offers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 439-443, July.
    8. Houser, Daniel & McCabe, Kevin & Smith, Vernon, 2004. "Cultural group selection, co evolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation (by Joseph Henrich)," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 85-88, January.
    9. Massimo Castro, 2006. "Cultural goods and laboratory experiments," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 3(1), pages 67-79, June.
    10. Colin Camerer & Teck-Hua Ho & Juin Kuan Chong, 2003. "A cognitive hierarchy theory of one-shot games: Some preliminary results," Levine's Bibliography 506439000000000495, UCLA Department of Economics.
    11. Smith, Vernon L., 2010. "Theory and experiment: What are the questions?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 3-15, January.
    12. Finocchiaro Castro Massimo, 2004. "Cultural Education and the Voluntary Provision of Cultural Goods: An Experimental Study," Experimental 0404002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Paola Iannello & Alessandro Antonietti, 2008. "Reciprocity in financial decision making: intuitive and analytical mind-reading strategies," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 55(1), pages 167-184, April.
    14. Ilaria Castelli & Davide Massaro & Alan Sanfey & Antonella Marchetti, 2010. "Fairness and intentionality in children’s decision-making," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 57(3), pages 269-288, September.
    15. Zak, Paul J., 2011. "The physiology of moral sentiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 53-65, January.
    16. Kamas, Linda & Preston, Anne, 2021. "Empathy, gender, and prosocial behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    17. Sally, David & Hill, Elisabeth, 2006. "The development of interpersonal strategy: Autism, theory-of-mind, cooperation and fairness," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 73-97, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Claudia M. Landeo & Kathryn E. Spier, 2016. "Stipulated Damages as a Rent-Extraction Mechanism: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(2), pages 235-273, June.
    2. Simon G�chter & Arno Riedl, "undated". "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining," IEW - Working Papers 113, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    3. Ralph W. Bailey & Jürgen Eichberger & David Kelsey, 2005. "Ambiguity and Public Good Provision in Large Societies," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 7(5), pages 741-759, December.
    4. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2011. "Fairness Ex Ante and Ex Post: Experimentally Testing Ex Post Judicial Intervention into Blockbuster Deals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 682-708, December.
    5. Güth, W., 1997. "Boundedly Rational Decision Emergence -A General Perspective and Some Selective Illustrations-," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,29, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    6. Burks, Stephen V. & Carpenter, Jeffrey P. & Verhoogen, Eric, 2003. "Playing both roles in the trust game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 195-216, June.
    7. Dickinson, David L. & Masclet, David, 2019. "Using ethical dilemmas to predict antisocial choices with real payoff consequences: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 195-215.
    8. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    9. Erin L. Krupka & Roberto A. Weber, 2013. "Identifying Social Norms Using Coordination Games: Why Does Dictator Game Sharing Vary?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 495-524, June.
    10. Binglin Gong & Huibin Yan & Chun-Lei Yang, 2015. "Gender differences in the dictator experiment: evidence from the matrilineal Mosuo and the patriarchal Yi," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 302-313, June.
    11. Nadine Chlaß & Peter G. Moffatt, 2017. "Giving in Dictator Games - Experimenter Demand Effect or Preference over the Rules of the Game?," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-044, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    12. Charness, Gary B & Haruvy, Ernan, 1999. "Self-Serving Biases: Evidence From A Simulated Labour Relationship," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt1vs8w2k7, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    13. Deck, Cary & Murphy, James J., 2019. "Donors change both their level and pattern of giving in response to contests among charities," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 91-106.
    14. Gary Bolton & Duncan Fong & Paul Mosquin, 2003. "Bayes Factors with an Application to Experimental Economics," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(3), pages 311-325, November.
    15. Christoph Bühren & Thorben C. Kundt, 2013. "Worker or Shirker – Who Evades More Taxes? A Real Effort Experiment," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201326, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    16. Ingar Haaland & Christopher Roth & Johannes Wohlfart, 2023. "Designing Information Provision Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 3-40, March.
    17. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    18. Hal R. Arkes & John H. Kagel & Dimitry Mezhvinsky, 2017. "Effects of a Management–Labor Context and Team Play on Ultimatum Game Outcomes," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 83(4), pages 993-1011, April.
    19. Sophie Cetre & Max Lobeck & Claudia Senik & Thierry Verdier, 2018. "In search of unanimously preferred income distributions. Evidence from a choice experiment," Working Papers halshs-01863359, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:expeco:v:3:y:2000:i:1:p:5-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.