IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/pkk/meb007/45-58.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Gerechtigkeit siegt über Eigennutz Ein Ultimatum Bargaining Game anhand von WM-Tickets

Author

Listed:
  • Marc Piazolo

    (Geld, Kredit und Außenwirtschaft University of Applied Sciences Kaiserslautern)

Abstract

Fairness wird nicht nur im Sport groß geschrieben, sondern auch im sozialen Alltag. Wie sieht es jedoch damit aus, wenn es um begehrte Dinge geht - beispielsweise um Eintrittskarten zu Spielen der Fußball-WM 2006? Im Rahmen eines Zeitungs- bzw. Internetexperiments untersuchten wir, ob Gerechtigkeitsvorstellungen wirtschaftliche Entscheidungen beeinflussen. Hierzu riefen wir im Mai 2006 zu einem fiktiven Gewinnspiel auf, bei dem zwölf Eintrittskarten für die Fußball-WM verteilt werden sollten. In einem ersten Schritt, wollten wir erfahren, wie fair und rational die Teilnehmer die begehrten Güter –die WM-Tickets bzw. 10 EUR je Ticket – aufteilten. In einem zweiten Schritt wurde beobachtet, in wieweit Menschen einen bestimmten Verteilungsvorschlag als gerecht ansehen und diesen akzeptieren oder ablehnen. Zusätzlich integrierten wir einen Intelligenztest und befragten im „ökonomisch unbedarfte“ Erstsemester zu ihrem Entscheidungsverhalten.

Suggested Citation

  • Marc Piazolo, 2007. "Gerechtigkeit siegt über Eigennutz Ein Ultimatum Bargaining Game anhand von WM-Tickets," Proceedings-5th International Conference on Management, Enterprise and Benchmarking (MEB 2007),, Óbuda University, Keleti Faculty of Business and Management.
    • Handle: RePEc:pkk:meb007:45-58
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.kgk.uni-obuda.hu/sites/default/files/4_Piazolo.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Werner Güth & Carsten Schmidt & Matthias Sutter, 2003. "Fairness in the Mail and Opportunism in the Internet: A Newspaper Experiment on Ultimatum Bargaining," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 4(2), pages 243-265, May.
    2. Werner Güth & Carsten Schmidt & Matthias Sutter, 2007. "Bargaining outside the lab - a newspaper experiment of a three-person ultimatum game," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(518), pages 449-469, March.
    3. Armin Falk, 2003. "Homo Oeconomicus versus Homo Reciprocans: Ansätze für ein neues Wirtschaftspolitisches Leitbild?," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 4(1), pages 141-172, February.
    4. Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Hoffmann, Robert & Jones, Martin & Williams, Geoffrey, 2009. "An economic anatomy of culture: Attitudes and behaviour in inter- and intra-national ultimatum game experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 732-744, October.
    5. Rotemberg, Julio J., 2008. "Minimally acceptable altruism and the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(3-4), pages 457-476, June.
    6. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    7. Jonathan D. Cohen, 2005. "The Vulcanization of the Human Brain: A Neural Perspective on Interactions Between Cognition and Emotion," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 3-24, Fall.
    8. John Kagel & Katherine Wolfe, 2001. "Tests of Fairness Models Based on Equity Considerations in a Three-Person Ultimatum Game," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(3), pages 203-219, December.
    9. David Dickinson, 2000. "Ultimatum decision-making: A test of reciprocal kindness," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 151-177, March.
    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. Marc Piazolo, 2015. "Fairness Dominating Human Behavior in Ultimatum Bargaining GameInitiative," Proceedings- 11th International Conference on Mangement, Enterprise and Benchmarking (MEB 2015),, Óbuda University, Keleti Faculty of Business and Management.

    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. 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.
    2. Hans-Rüdiger Pfister & Gisela Böhm, 2012. "Responder Feelings in a Three-Player Three-Option Ultimatum Game: Affective Determinants of Rejection Behavior," Games, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-29, February.
    3. Fischer, Sven & Güth, Werner, 2012. "Effects of exclusion on acceptance in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1100-1114.
    4. Ockenfels, Axel & Werner, Peter, 2012. "‘Hiding behind a small cake’ in a newspaper dictator game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 82-85.
    5. Werner Güth & Carsten Schmidt & Matthias Sutter, 2007. "Bargaining outside the lab - a newspaper experiment of a three-person ultimatum game," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(518), pages 449-469, March.
    6. Schwaninger, Manuel, 2022. "Sharing with the powerless third: Other-regarding preferences in dynamic bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 341-355.
    7. repec:dgr:uvatin:20040098 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Reuben, Ernesto & van Winden, Frans, 2008. "Social ties and coordination on negative reciprocity: The role of affect," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(1-2), pages 34-53, February.
    9. Werner Güth, 2009. "Optimal gelaufen, einfach zufrieden oder unüberlegt gehandelt? Zur Theorie (un)eingeschränkt rationalen Entscheidens," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 10(s1), pages 75-100, May.
    10. Sven Fischer & Werner Güth, 2011. "Effects of exclusion on social preferences," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2011_34, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    11. He, Haoran & Wu, Keyu, 2016. "Choice set, relative income, and inequity aversion: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 177-193.
    12. Sven Fischer, 2005. "Inequality Aversion in Ultimatum Games with Asymmetric Conflict Payoffs - A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis -," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2005-36, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    13. Rotemberg, Julio J., 2008. "Minimally acceptable altruism and the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(3-4), pages 457-476, June.
    14. Ciril Bosch-Rosa, 2014. "A Tale of Two Tails: Preferences of neutral third-parties in three-player ultimatum games," SFB 649 Discussion Papers SFB649DP2014-057, Sonderforschungsbereich 649, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.
    15. Emin Karagözoğlu & Ümit Barış Urhan, 2017. "The Effect of Stake Size in Experimental Bargaining and Distribution Games: A Survey," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 285-325, March.
    16. Ernesto Reuben & Frans van Winden, 2004. "Reciprocity and Emotions when Reciprocators know each other," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 04-098/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    17. Hinz, Janna & Nicklisch, Andreas, 2015. "Reciprocity Models Revisitedː Intention Factors and Reference Values," WiSo-HH Working Paper Series 25, University of Hamburg, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, WISO Research Laboratory.
    18. Ingersoll, William Robert & Roomets, Alex, 2020. "Bargaining with a partially-incentivized agent," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 96-115.
    19. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    20. Thieme, Lutz & Winkelhake, Olaf & Hartmann, Ulrich, 2014. "Fairness als universelle Norm? Empirische Evidenz ohne Manna [Fairness as a universal norm? Empiric evidence without manna]," Working Papers of the European Institute for Socioeconomics 12, European Institute for Socioeconomics (EIS), Saarbrücken.
    21. Müller, Stephan, 2014. "The evolution of inequality aversion in a simplified game of life," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 219, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.

    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:pkk:meb007:45-58. 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: Alexandra Vécsey (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gkbmfhu.html .

    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.