Predicted Outcome of the Ultimatum Game with Self-Interested Players
Assuming players are purely self-interested, economic theory predicts a specific outcome for the ultimatum game. A Responder, acting on self-interest, would accept any offer greater than zero, since receiving even a minimal amount is better than getting nothing from a rejection. Anticipating this, a Proposer would offer the smallest possible positive amount to maximize their own share, confident that it would be accepted. This theoretical outcome is considered Pareto efficient, as no one can be made better off without making someone else worse off, but it is also highly inequitable.
0
1
Tags
Library Science
Economics
Economy
Introduction to Microeconomics Course
Social Science
Empirical Science
Science
CORE Econ
Ch.4 Strategic interactions and social dilemmas - The Economy 2.0 Microeconomics @ CORE Econ
The Economy 2.0 Microeconomics @ CORE Econ
Related
Predicted Outcome of the Ultimatum Game with Self-Interested Players
The Proposer's Strategic Decision
In a game, a 'Proposer' is given $100 and must offer a portion of it to a 'Responder'. The Responder can either accept the offer, and the money is split as proposed, or reject it, and both players receive nothing. If you are the Responder, which of the following best represents the fundamental trade-off you must evaluate when deciding on your minimum acceptable offer?
Proposer's Dilemma: Risk vs. Reward
Proposer's Dilemma: Risk vs. Reward
The Proposer's Strategic Dilemma
In a game where one person (the 'Proposer') is given $100 and must offer a portion of it to a second person (the 'Responder'), what is the central strategic conflict the Proposer must resolve? The Responder can accept the offer, in which case the money is split as proposed, or reject it, in which case both individuals receive nothing.
In a one-time interaction, a 'Proposer' is given $100 and must offer a portion to a 'Responder'. The Responder can either accept the offer, splitting the money as proposed, or reject it, in which case both players receive nothing. The Proposer offers $20. If the Responder rejects this offer, which statement best analyzes the strategic failure in this interaction?
In a one-time interaction, a 'Proposer' is given $100 and must offer a portion to a 'Responder'. If the Responder accepts, the money is split as proposed; if they reject, both get nothing. The Proposer believes the Responder is highly likely to reject any offer below $30. Given this belief, which of the following statements provides the most accurate evaluation of the Proposer's strategic options?
True or False: In a one-time interaction where a 'Proposer' is given $100 to split with a 'Responder', the Proposer's primary strategic task is to determine the maximum amount they can keep, without considering the possibility that the Responder might reject the offer.
Factors Influencing Ultimatum Game Outcomes
Behavior of a Purely Self-Interested Responder in the Ultimatum Game
In a one-time interaction, one person (the 'Proposer') is given a sum of money and must offer a portion of it to a second person (the 'Responder'). The Responder can either accept the offer, and the money is split as proposed, or reject it, and both players receive nothing. Match each player with their primary strategic challenge.
Learn After
Observed Ultimatum Game Outcomes vs. the Homo Economicus Model
A government policy that imposes a high tax on the production of goods that create significant air pollution is primarily intended to increase government revenue for funding public services.
In a one-time interaction, a 'Proposer' is given $10.00 and must offer a portion of it to a 'Responder'. The Responder can either accept the offer, in which case the money is split as proposed, or reject it, in which case both individuals receive nothing. Assuming both players are perfectly rational, only care about maximizing their own monetary gain, and the smallest unit of currency is one cent ($0.01), what is the predicted outcome of this interaction?
Analyzing Decisions in a Bargaining Scenario
Proposer's Rationale in a Bargaining Scenario
In a one-shot bargaining game, a Proposer is given a sum of money to split with a Responder. The Proposer makes an offer, and the Responder can either accept it (they both get the proposed shares) or reject it (they both get nothing). If both individuals are perfectly rational and care only about maximizing their own monetary gain, the Proposer will offer the smallest possible positive amount, and the Responder will accept. Which statement best evaluates this outcome?
Evaluating a Bargaining Decision
Deconstructing Rational Decisions in a Bargaining Game
In a one-shot bargaining game, a Proposer offers a split of a sum of money to a Responder. The Responder can accept the offer, or reject it, in which case neither player receives anything. Assuming both players are perfectly rational and only seek to maximize their own monetary gain, match each component of the theoretical model to its correct description.
In a one-time bargaining game where a sum of money is to be split, if a Proposer and a Responder are both acting solely to maximize their own individual monetary gain, the Proposer's decision on what to offer is made without considering the Responder's potential reaction.
A 'Proposer' is given a sum of money to split with a 'Responder' in a one-time interaction. If the Responder rejects the offer, neither person gets any money. Assuming the Proposer is perfectly rational and solely motivated by maximizing their own monetary gain, arrange the following steps of their decision-making process into the correct logical order.
Proposer's Rationale in a Bargaining Scenario