IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v177y2019icp5-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The proposer’s behavior in the ultimatum game in 11 Mexican villages

Author

Listed:
  • Candelo, Natalia
  • Eckel, Catherine
  • Johnson, Cathleen

Abstract

Previous research suggests several motivations behind the proposer’s behavior in the Ultimatum Game, deviating from an income maximizing strategy. Proposers who deviate from this strategy are more altruistic, more risk averse, have false beliefs about the norm of fairness in their society, and therefore, offer more than what is acceptable for the responder in this game. We test these hypotheses with a large representative sample of 1009 subjects from 11 villages across Mexico. Participants make decisions in an ultimatum game and a dictator game. Our results vary systematically across villages, and support that proposers’ decisions are motivated by altruistic motives and their own hypothetical Minimum Acceptable Offer (i.e., false consensus: their beliefs), more than their risk preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Candelo, Natalia & Eckel, Catherine & Johnson, Cathleen, 2019. "The proposer’s behavior in the ultimatum game in 11 Mexican villages," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 5-8.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:177:y:2019:i:c:p:5-8
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2019.01.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176519300060
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2019.01.006?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. Joseph Henrich, 2001. "In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 73-78, May.
    2. Natalia Candelo & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson, 2018. "Social Distance Matters in Dictator Games: Evidence from 11 Mexican Villages," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-13, October.
    3. David Cooper & E. Dutcher, 2011. "The dynamics of responder behavior in ultimatum games: a meta-study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 519-546, November.
    4. Catherine C. Eckel & Philip J. Grossman, 2008. "Forecasting Risk Attitudes: An Experimental Study Using Actual and Forecast Gamble Choices," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-01, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    5. Bahry, Donna L. & Wilson, Rick K., 2006. "Confusion or fairness in the field? Rejections in the ultimatum game under the strategy method," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 37-54, May.
    6. Hessel Oosterbeek & Randolph Sloof & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2004. "Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 171-188, June.
    7. Samuel Bowles & Robert Boyd & Colin Camerer & Ernst Fehr & Herbert Gintis & Joseph Henrich & Richard McElreath, 2001. "In search of homo economicus: Experiments in 15 small-scale societies," Artefactual Field Experiments 00068, The Field Experiments Website.
    8. Colin F. Camerer & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Anomalies: Ultimatums, Dictators and Manners," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 209-219, Spring.
    9. Hoffman, Elizabeth & McCabe, Kevin & Smith, Vernon L, 1996. "Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 653-660, June.
    10. Catherine C. Eckel & Angela de Oliveira & Philip J. Grossman, 2008. "Gender and Negotiation in the Small: Are Women Perceived to Be More Cooperative than Men?," Monash Economics Working Papers archive-02, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    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. Qi, Tianxiao & Xu, Bin & Wu, Jinshan & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2022. "On the Stochasticity of Ultimatum Games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 227-254.
    2. Natalia Candelo & Catherine Eckel & Cathleen Johnson, 2018. "Social Distance Matters in Dictator Games: Evidence from 11 Mexican Villages," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-13, October.
    3. Gonzalez-Sanchez, Eric & Loyola, Gino, 2024. "Ultimatum bargaining with envy under incomplete information," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 1-11.

    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. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    2. Shanshan Zhen & Rongjun Yu, 2016. "Tend to Compare and Tend to Be Fair: The Relationship between Social Comparison Sensitivity and Justice Sensitivity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Dietrich, Stephan & Beekman, Gonne & Nillesen, Eleonora, 2018. "Market integration and pro-social behaviour in rural Liberia," MERIT Working Papers 2018-010, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    5. Avner Ben-Ner & Louis Putterman, "undated". "Trust in the New Economy," Working Papers 1102, Human Resources and Labor Studies, University of Minnesota (Twin Cities Campus).
    6. Croson, Rachel & Gächter, Simon, 2010. "The science of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 122-131, January.
    7. Cochard, François & Le Gallo, Julie & Georgantzis, Nikolaos & Tisserand, Jean-Christian, 2021. "Social preferences across different populations: Meta-analyses on the ultimatum game and dictator game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    8. Gautam Bose & Lorraine Ivancic & Evgenia Dechter, 2014. "Conforming to Group Norms: An Experimental Study," Discussion Papers 2014-21, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    9. Tobias Hahn & Noël Albert, 2017. "Strong Reciprocity in Consumer Boycotts," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 145(3), pages 509-524, October.
    10. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2014-057 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Bosch-Rosa, Ciril, 2014. "A tale of two tails: Preferences of neutral third-parties in three-player ultimatum games," SFB 649 Discussion Papers 2014-057, Humboldt University Berlin, Collaborative Research Center 649: Economic Risk.
    12. Vatn, Arild, 2009. "Cooperative behavior and institutions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 188-196, January.
    13. 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.
    14. Murnighan, J. Keith & Wang, Long, 2016. "The social world as an experimental game," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 80-94.
    15. Damon Tomlin, 2015. "Rational Constraints and the Evolution of Fairness in the Ultimatum Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    16. Camerer, Colin F. & Ho, Teck-Hua, 2015. "Behavioral Game Theory Experiments and Modeling," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    17. Napitupulu, Lucentezza & Bouma, Jetske & Reyes-García, Victoria, 2018. "The Things We Share: Sharing in Daily Life and Experimental Settings Among Punan Tubu, Indonesian Borneo," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 88-97.
    18. Boyu Zhang, 2013. "Social Learning in the Ultimatum Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-6, September.
    19. Liqi Zhu & Gerd Gigerenzer & Gang Huangfu, 2013. "Psychological Traces of China's Socio-Economic Reforms in the Ultimatum and Dictator Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-6, August.
    20. Finocchiaro Castro, Massimo, 2008. "Where are you from? Cultural differences in public good experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2319-2329, December.
    21. Blair Cleave & Nikos Nikiforakis & Robert Slonim, 2013. "Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 372-382, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Ultimatum game; Altruism; Risk; False consensus; Beliefs; Lab-in-the-field;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • O1 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development
    • H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:ecolet:v:177:y:2019:i:c:p:5-8. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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.