IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/pkk/meb015/171-182.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Fairness Dominating Human Behavior in Ultimatum Bargaining GameInitiative

Author

Listed:
  • Marc Piazolo

    (University of Applied Sciences Kaiserslautern)

Abstract

In 2013, we conducted an international field experiment on human behavior in South Africa and Germany. For this ulitmatum bargaining game, an inheritance of 12,000 ZAR (1,000 EUR) had to be split up. Three randomly selected participants slipped into the roles of the beneficiaries: Andy had the right to propose the distribution of the inheritance. Berta could either accept or reject the proposal. Carlos had no rights at all. As proposer, a large majority opted for an equal split. This was followed by the two power coalitions with 19% of the votes. Less than 4% opted for the proposal of homo oeconomicus (10,000-1,000-1,000 ZAR). Statistically significant differences in behavior exist between Germans and South Africans. In general, inequality aversion is much stronger among South Africans. While two thirds of South Africans propose an equal split, less than half of the Germans do. Gender as well as economic education also help to explain the internaitonal differences in behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:pkk:meb015:171-182
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://kgk.uni-obuda.hu/sites/default/files/13_Piazolo.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Armin Falk & Thomas Dohmen & Uwe Sunde, 2009. "Kontrolliert und repräsentativ: Beispiele zur Komplementarität von Labor‐ und Felddaten," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 10(s1), pages 54-74, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Dr. Marc Piazolo, 2010. "Dividing up an Inheritance Successfully – Significant International Variations Surprising Results of an Internet Experiment," Proceedings-8th International Conference on Mangement,Enterprise and Benchmarking (MEB 2010),, Óbuda University, Keleti Faculty of Business and Management.
    4. 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.
    5. Klaus M. Schmidt, 2009. "The Role of Experiments for the Development of Economic Theories," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 10(s1), pages 14-30, May.
    6. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Werner Güth, 2011. "Bargaining and Negotiations What should experimentalists explore more thoroughly?," Jena Economics Research Papers 2011-012, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    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. 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.
    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 & Oliver Kirchkamp, 2010. "Will You Accept Without Knowing What? A Thuringian Newspaper Experiment of the Yes-No Game," Jena Economics Research Papers 2010-006, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    6. Fischer, Sven & Güth, Werner, 2012. "Effects of exclusion on acceptance in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1100-1114.
    7. Avrahami, Judith & Güth, Werner & Hertwig, Ralph & Kareev, Yaakov & Otsubo, Hironori, 2013. "Learning (not) to yield: An experimental study of evolving ultimatum game behavior," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 47-54.
    8. Güth, Werner & Kliemt, Hartmut, 2010. "What ethics can learn from experimental economics -- If anything," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 302-310, September.
    9. Buchner, Susanne & Gonzalez, Luis G. & Guth, Werner & Levati, M. Vittoria, 2004. "Incentive contracts versus trust in three-person ultimatum games: an experimental study," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 673-694, September.
    10. Reuben, Ernesto & van Winden, Frans, 2010. "Fairness perceptions and prosocial emotions in the power to take," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 908-922, December.
    11. Werner Güth & Oliver Kirchkamp, 2012. "Will you accept without knowing what? The Yes-No game in the newspaper and in the lab," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(4), pages 656-666, December.
    12. Holm, Håkan & Nystedt, Paul, 2008. "Trust in surveys and games - A methodological contribution on the influence of money and location," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 522-542, August.
    13. 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.
    14. Dr. Marc Piazolo, 2010. "Dividing up an Inheritance Successfully – Significant International Variations Surprising Results of an Internet Experiment," Proceedings-8th International Conference on Mangement,Enterprise and Benchmarking (MEB 2010),, Óbuda University, Keleti Faculty of Business and Management.
    15. 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.
    16. Giamattei, Marcus & Graf Lambsdorff, Johann, 2015. "classEx: An online software for classroom experiments," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Volkswirtschaftliche Reihe V-68-15, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    17. 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.
    18. Janna Hinz & Andreas Nicklisch & Mey-Ling Sommer, 2024. "Reciprocity models revisited: intention factors and reference values," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 53(2), pages 299-324, June.
    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. 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.

    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:meb015:171-182. 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.