Bargaining over waiting time in ultimatum game experiments

被引:29
作者
Berger, Roger [1 ]
Rauhut, Heiko [2 ]
Prade, Sandra [3 ]
Heibing, Dirk [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Leipzig, Inst Soziol, D-04107 Leipzig, Germany
[2] ETH, Swiss Fed Inst Technol, Chair Sociol Particular Modeling & Simulat, CLU, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland
[3] Univ Munich, Inst Stat, D-80539 Munich, Germany
关键词
Ultimatum game; Loss; Anonymity; Fairness; Experimental economics; Methodology; PUNISHMENT; COOPERATION; PREFERENCES; PSYCHOLOGY; ANONYMITY; DICTATOR; STAKES; GAINS; COST;
D O I
10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.09.009
中图分类号
C91 [社会学];
学科分类号
030301 ; 1204 ;
摘要
While preference-based explanations play an increasing role in economics and sociology, the accurate measurement of social preferences deserves more attention. Most laboratory experiments measure social preferences by studying the division of "a cake that nobody had to bake" (Guth and Kliemt, 2003). This article reports results of the first ultimatum game experiment with bargaining over waiting time. The experiment was created to avoid effects of windfall gains. In contrast to donated money, time is not endowed by the experimenter and implies a natural loss to subjects. This allows for a better measurement of the inherent conflict in the ultimatum game. We implemented three anonymity conditions: one baseline condition, one condition with anonymity among subjects and one double-blind condition in which the experimenter did not know the division of waiting time. While we expected to observe less other-regarding behavior in ultimatum game bargaining over time, our experimental results rather confirm previous ultimatum game experiments, in which people bargained over money. The modal offer was half of the waiting time and only one offer was rejected. Interestingly, anonymity did not change the results significantly. In conclusion, our experiment confirms other-regarding behavior in the ultimatum game. (C) 2011 Published by Elsevier Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:372 / 379
页数:8
相关论文
共 46 条
[1]   An experimental examination of the house money effect in a multi-period setting [J].
Ackert, LF ;
Charupat, N ;
Church, BK ;
Deaves, R .
EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS, 2006, 9 (01) :5-16
[2]  
[Anonymous], SOCIAL FORC IN PRESS
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1992, EUR J POLIT ECON, DOI DOI 10.1016/0176-2680(92)90028-f
[4]   THE PSYCHOLOGY OF WINDFALL GAINS [J].
ARKES, HR ;
JOYNER, CA ;
PEZZO, MV ;
NASH, JG ;
SIEGELJACOBS, K ;
STONE, E .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1994, 59 (03) :331-347
[5]   Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact? [J].
Bardsley, Nicholas .
EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS, 2008, 11 (02) :122-133
[6]  
Becker G., 1996, Accounting for Tastes, DOI DOI 10.4159/9780674020658
[7]  
Berger R., 2010, EXPT QUASIEXPERIMENT
[8]   ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition [J].
Bolton, GE ;
Ockenfels, A .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2000, 90 (01) :166-193
[9]   Replicating Milgram Would People Still Obey Today? [J].
Burger, Jerry M. .
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 2009, 64 (01) :1-11
[10]   High-testosterone men reject low ultimatum game offers [J].
Burnham, Terence C. .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2007, 274 (1623) :2327-2330