Rejection of a Minimal Offer in the Ultimatum Game
In ultimatum game experiments, an extremely low but positive offer, such as one cent out of a total of $100, is typically rejected by Responders. This common experimental result across various cultures suggests that Responders perceive such a division as fundamentally unfair and choose to punish the Proposer even at their own expense.
0
1
Tags
Library Science
Economics
Economy
Introduction to Microeconomics Course
Social Science
Empirical Science
Science
CORE Econ
Ch.5 The rules of the game: Who gets what and why - The Economy 2.0 Microeconomics @ CORE Econ
The Economy 2.0 Microeconomics @ CORE Econ
Related
Modeling the Responder's Reciprocity Motive
Universal Rejection of Zero Offers in the Ultimatum Game
Rejection of a Minimal Offer in the Ultimatum Game
In a one-shot interaction, Person A is given $100 and must propose a way to split the money with Person B. Person B can either accept the split, in which case they both receive the money as proposed, or reject it, in which case both receive $0. Person A proposes to keep $98 and give Person B $2. If Person B's decision is strongly influenced by a desire to penalize actions they perceive as violating social standards of fairness, which outcome is most likely and why?
Analyzing Experimental Outcomes in a Bargaining Game
Explaining a Seemingly Irrational Economic Decision
In a single, anonymous interaction where one person proposes how to split a sum of money and a second person can accept or reject the split (with rejection meaning both get nothing), a rejection of any offer greater than zero is considered an economically irrational decision because the second person forgoes a guaranteed gain.
Evaluating Economic Models of Behavior
In a one-time game, one person (the Proposer) is given $10 to split with a second person (the Responder). The Responder can accept the proposed split or reject it, in which case both players receive nothing. Match each potential offer from the Proposer to the Responder's most likely motivation and subsequent action, assuming the Responder is strongly influenced by social fairness norms.
In a one-time game, a Proposer is given $100 to split with a Responder. The Responder can either accept the proposed split, in which case they both receive the money as proposed, or reject it, in which case both receive nothing. Assume the Responder's decision is heavily influenced by a desire to penalize offers they perceive as unfair, with the strength of this desire increasing as the offer becomes more unfair. Arrange the following offers from most likely to be rejected to least likely to be rejected.
In a one-time bargaining game where one person proposes how to divide a sum of money and a second person can accept or reject the proposal (with rejection meaning neither person gets anything), the second person's choice to reject a low but positive offer demonstrates that their motivation is not solely to maximize their own payoff, but also to ________ the first person for a perceived breach of fairness.
Evaluating an Economic Conclusion
In a one-time, anonymous interaction, Player 1 is given $100 and must propose how to divide it with Player 2. Player 2 can either accept the proposal, in which case they both get the money as proposed, or reject it, in which case both players receive $0. Player 1 offers to keep $90 and give Player 2 $10. Player 2 rejects the offer. Which of the following statements provides the best analysis of Player 2's decision?
Learn After
A city official makes the following argument: 'We should decrease police presence in our city's largest public park at night. Very few people use the park after dark, so the safety provided by the patrols is largely going to waste and is not being fully consumed.' From an economic perspective, what is the primary flaw in this reasoning regarding the 'consumption' of safety?
In a one-shot interaction, two anonymous individuals are given $100 to divide. The first person (the Proposer) suggests a split, and the second person (the Responder) can either accept it, in which case the money is divided as proposed, or reject it, in which case both receive nothing. The Proposer offers $1 to the Responder and plans to keep $99. According to a model where individuals are assumed to act solely to maximize their own monetary payoff, what should the Responder do, and how does this compare to typical real-world experimental results?
Predicting Behavior in an Economic Game
In a one-time, anonymous interaction, one person is given a sum of money and instructed to propose a way to divide it with a second person. The second person can either accept the proposed division, in which case they both get the money as proposed, or reject it, in which case neither person receives anything. The most frequently observed real-world result is that the second person will accept any offer greater than zero, because receiving a small amount of money is logically better than receiving nothing.
Explaining Responder Behavior in an Economic Game
Applying Fairness Principles to Business Negotiations
Analyzing Economic Models through Experimental Results
In a one-shot, anonymous Ultimatum Game with a $100 prize, a Proposer is aware that Responders in past experiments often reject offers they perceive as unfair. To maximize their own expected financial gain, which of the following strategies should the Proposer adopt?
A large corporation is in a legal dispute with a small startup over a patent potentially worth $10 million. To avoid a costly court battle, the corporation makes a final, one-time settlement offer of $50,000 to the startup. A purely financial model, which assumes that decision-makers only seek to maximize their monetary gain, would predict that the startup will accept the offer. Why is this prediction likely to be inaccurate in a real-world context?
In a common economic experiment, one person (the 'Proposer') is given $100 and must offer a portion to a second person (the 'Responder'). The Responder can either accept the offer, and the money is split as proposed, or reject it, in which case neither person receives anything. Experiments consistently show that Responders frequently reject offers below $20. What long-held assumption in traditional economic models is most directly challenged by this finding?
In a one-time, anonymous interaction, one person is given a sum of money and instructed to propose a way to divide it with a second person. The second person can either accept the proposed division, in which case they both get the money as proposed, or reject it, in which case neither person receives anything. The most frequently observed real-world result is that the second person will accept any offer greater than zero, because receiving a small amount of money is logically better than receiving nothing.