IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lmu/muenar/18220.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bargaining under time pressure in an experimental ultimatum game

Author

Listed:
  • Sutter, Matthias
  • Kocher, Martin G.
  • Strauß, Sabine

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Sutter, Matthias & Kocher, Martin G. & Strauß, Sabine, 2003. "Bargaining under time pressure in an experimental ultimatum game," Munich Reprints in Economics 18220, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:lmu:muenar:18220
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kocher, Martin G. & Sutter, Matthias, 2006. "Time is money--Time pressure, incentives, and the quality of decision-making," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 375-392, November.
    2. Gilliland, Stephen W. & Schmitt, Neal, 1993. "Information Redundancy and Decision Behavior: A Process Tracing Investigation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 157-180, March.
    3. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    4. Weenig, Mieneke W. H. & Maarleveld, Marleen, 2002. "The impact of time constraint on information search strategies in complex choice tasks," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 689-702, December.
    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. Dilmaghani, Maryam, 2020. "Gender differences in performance under time constraint: Evidence from chess tournaments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    2. Michael Seiler, 2014. "The Effect of Perceived Lender Characteristics and Market Conditions on Strategic Mortgage Defaults," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 256-270, February.
    3. Giuseppe Attanasi & Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Aldo Montesano, 2015. "Bargaining over Strategies of Non-Cooperative Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-26, August.
    4. Robison, Lindon J. & Hanson, Steven D., 1995. "Social Capital and Economic Cooperation," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 43-58, July.
    5. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    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. Seema Kacker & Tin Aung & Dominic Montagu & David Bishai, 2021. "Providers preferences towards greater patient health benefit is associated with higher quality of care," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 271-294, September.
    8. Mazen Hassan & Sarah Mansour & Stefan Voigt & May Gadallah, 2022. "When Syria was in Egypt’s land: Egyptians cooperate with Syrians, but less with each other," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(3), pages 337-362, June.
    9. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2009. "Homo Reciprocans: Survey Evidence on Behavioural Outcomes," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(536), pages 592-612, March.
    10. Sylvie Thoron, 2016. "Morality Beyond Social Preferences: Smithian Sympathy, Social Neuroscience and the Nature of Social Consciousness [La moralité au delà des préférences sociales. La sympathie Smithienne, les neurosc," Post-Print hal-01645043, HAL.
    11. 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.
    12. Bradley J. Ruffle, 2005. "Buyer Countervailing Power: A Survey of Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 0512, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Department of Economics.
    13. Gale, John & Binmore, Kenneth G. & Samuelson, Larry, 1995. "Learning to be imperfect: The ultimatum game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 56-90.
    14. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2011. "Economic Models as Analogies," PIER Working Paper Archive 12-001, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    15. Stephen Leider & William S. Lovejoy, 2016. "Bargaining in Supply Chains," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 3039-3058, October.
    16. Giovanni Bartolomeo & Stefano Papa, 2016. "Trust and reciprocity: extensions and robustness of triadic design," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 19(1), pages 100-115, March.
    17. John A. List, 2007. "On the Interpretation of Giving in Dictator Games," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(3), pages 482-493.
    18. Hugh-Jones, David & Ooi, Jinnie, 2023. "Where do fairness preferences come from? Norm transmission in a teen friendship network," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    19. Noeske, Niko, 2014. "A dynamic model of reciprocity with asymmetric equilibrium payoffs," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 446, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    20. Joshua S. Gans & Andrew Leigh, 2012. "Bargaining Over Labour: Do Patients Have Any Power?," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 88(281), pages 182-194, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    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:lmu:muenar:18220. 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: Tamilla Benkelberg (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.