Hostname: page-component-5ffc9858b4-hr6z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-24T11:49:22.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Perceptions of Fairness: The Role of Valuations, Outside Options, and Information in Ultimatum Bargaining Games

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Pamela M. Schmitt
Pamela M. Schmitt*
Affiliation:
United States Naval Academy, Department of Economics, 589 McNair Road 10-D, Annapolis, MD 21402, USA
*
email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines fairness perceptions in ultimatum bargaining games with asymmetric payoffs, outside options, and different information states. Fairness perceptions were dependent on treatment conditions. Specifically, when proposers had higher chip values, dollar offers were lower than when responders had higher chip values. When responders had an outside option, offers were higher and were rejected less often than when proposers had an outside option. However, a given offer was rejected more often when responders had an outside option. Therefore, similar to the first mover advantage, the “advantaged” or “entitled” player received a higher monetary payoff than they would otherwise. When there was complete information about payoff amounts (payoff conversion rates and outside options), rejections occurred more often, and given offer amounts were rejected more often than when there was incomplete information. When there was incomplete information, offers were higher in the initial rounds than in the final rounds. These results suggest that proposers made offers strategically, making offers that would not be rejected, rather than out of a concern for fairness.

Keywords

ultimatum gamesbargainingexperimentsfairness

JEL classification

D63: Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement D64: Altruism • Philanthropy • Intergenerational Transfers C78: Bargaining Theory • Matching Theory C91: Laboratory, Individual Behavior C72: Noncooperative Games
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 2004 , pp. 49 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbink, K., Bolton, G., Sadrieh, A., and Tang, F. (2001). “Adaptive Learning versus Punishment in Ultimatum Bargaining.” Games and Economic Behavior. 37, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, K., Shaked, A., and Sutton, J. (1989). “An Outside Option Experiment.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 104(4), 753–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boles, T.L., Croson, R.A., and Murnighan, J.K. (2002). “Deception and Retribution in Repeated Ultimatum Bargaining.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, in press.Google Scholar
Bolton, G. (1991). “A Comparative Model of Bargaining: Theory and Evidence.” American Economic Review. 81(5), 1096–1136.Google Scholar
Bolton, G. and Ockenfels, A. (2000). “ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition.” American Economic Review. 90, 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, G. and Zwick, R. (1995). “Anonymity versus Punishment in Ultimatum Bargaining.” Games and Economic Behavior. 10, 95–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., and Weber, M. (1989). “The Curse of Knowledge in Economic Settings: An Experimental Analysis.” Journal of Political Economy. 97(5), 1232–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croson, R. (1996). “Information in Ultimatum Games: An Experimental Study.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 30, 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croson, R.A., Boles, T.L., and Murnighan, J.K. “Cheap Talk in Bargaining Experiments: Lying and Threats in Ultimatum Games.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. forthcoming.Google Scholar
Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K.M. (1999). “A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 114(3), 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J.L., Savin, N.E., and Sefton, M. (1994). “Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments.” Games and Economic Behavior. 6(3), 347–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güth, W., Huck, S., and Muller, W. (2001). “The Relevance of Equal Splits in Ultimatum Games.” Games and Economic Behavior. 37, 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güth, W., Huck, S., and Ockenfels, P. (1996). “Two-Level Ultimatum Bargaining with Incomplete Information: An Experimental Study.” The Economic Journal. 106, 593–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güth, W. and Tietz, R. (1990). “Ultimatum Bargaining Behavior: A Survey and Comparison of Experimental Results.” Journal of Economic Psychology. 11, 471–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagel, J., Kim, C., and Moser, D. (1996). “Fairness in Ultimatum Games with Asymmetric Information and Asymmetric Payoffs.” Games and Economic Behavior 13, 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagel, J. and Wolfe, K.W. (2001). “Tests of Fairness Models Based on Equity Considerations in a Three-Person Ultimatum Game.” Experimental Economics. 4(3), 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., and Thaler, R.H. (1986). “Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics.” Journal of Business. 59(4, Part 2), s285–s300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knez, M. and Camerer, C. (1995). “Outside Options and Social Comparison in Three-Player Ultimatum Game Experiments.” Games and Economic Behavior 10, 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitzkewitz, M. and Nagel, R. (1993). “Envy, Greed and Anticipation in Ultimatum Games with Incomplete Information: An Experimental Study.” International Journal of Game Theory. 22, 171–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pillutla, M.M. and Murnighan, J.K. (1996). “Unfairness, Anger, and Spite: Emotional Rejections of Ultimatum Offers.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 68, 208–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, A. and Sundali, J.A. (1996). “Ultimatums in Two-Person Bargaining with One-Sided Uncertainty: Offer Games.” International Journal of Game Theory. 25, 475–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, A., Sundali, J.A., and Seale, D.A. (1996). “Ultimatums in Two-Person Bargaining with One-Sided Uncertainty: Demand Games.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 30, 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A. (1995). “Bargaining Experiments.” In Kagel, J. and Roth, A. (eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Roth, A. and Murnighan, J.K. (1982). “The Role of Information in Bargaining: An Experimental Study.” Econometrica. 50, 1123–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seale, D.A., Daniel, T.E., and Rapoport, A. (2001). “The Information Advantage in Two-Person Bargaining with Incomplete Information.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 44, 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straub, P.G. and Murnighan, J.K. (1995). “An experimental Investigation of Ultimatum Games: Information, Fairness, Expectations, and Lowest Acceptable Offers.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 27, 345–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar