Responder's Punitive Reaction to Offers Breaching Social Norms
Responders in the ultimatum game often reject offers they perceive as unfair, even when it means sacrificing their own monetary gain. This punitive reaction is driven by a desire to penalize the Proposer for violating social norms of fairness. By rejecting the offer, the Responder ensures that the Proposer also receives nothing, effectively enforcing the social norm at a personal cost.
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
Proposer's Strategic Decision in the Ultimatum Game
In a one-time interaction, two individuals must decide how to split $100. The first person (the Proposer) suggests a split, and the second person (the Responder) can either accept it or reject it. If the Responder accepts, the money is divided as proposed. If the Responder rejects, both individuals receive nothing. The Proposer offers to give the Responder $1 and keep $99 for themselves. Which statement provides the most accurate analysis of the Responder's decision-making process if they choose to reject this offer?
Responder's Dilemma in a Resource Split
Analyzing the Responder's Decision in a One-Shot Division Game
In a one-shot interaction where one person proposes how to split $100 and a second person (the Responder) can accept or reject the offer (with rejection leading to zero payoff for both), a Responder who is solely motivated by maximizing their own immediate financial gain should reject any offer where they receive less than $20.
The Responder's Conflict
In a one-shot game, a Proposer suggests how to split $100 with a Responder. The Responder can either accept the split or reject it, in which case both receive nothing. Match each scenario (an offer and the Responder's decision) with the most likely underlying rationale for that decision.
Two individuals are tasked with splitting a $100 bonus. The first person proposes a split, and the second person can either accept it (they get the money as proposed) or reject it (both get nothing). This is a one-time interaction. Arrange the following offers from the perspective of the second person, starting with the offer most likely to be rejected and ending with the offer least likely to be rejected.
In a one-time interaction, two individuals must divide $100. The first person (Proposer) offers a split, and the second person (Responder) can accept or reject it. If rejected, both get nothing. The Proposer offers the Responder $10 and plans to keep $90. The Responder rejects this offer. Which of the following statements provides the least compelling explanation for the Responder's decision?
Contrasting Responder Strategies
Evaluating a Strategic Justification
Responder's Punitive Reaction to Offers Breaching Social Norms
Responder's Decision Rule with Reciprocal Preferences
Responder's Punitive Reaction to Offers Breaching Social Norms
In a one-shot game where a 'Proposer' is given $100 and must offer a portion to a 'Responder', who can either accept or reject the offer (if rejected, neither player gets anything), experimental results consistently show two things: 1) Proposers most frequently offer between $40 and $50. 2) Responders often reject offers below $20. What is the most logical conclusion to draw from this evidence about the players' motivations?
Predicting Offers Based on Social Context
Evaluating the Homo economicus Model in the Ultimatum Game
In a one-shot ultimatum game where a Proposer is given $10 to split, a Proposer behaving as a purely self-interested actor (Homo economicus) would offer the Responder $5, as this is the fairest split and most likely to be accepted.
Explaining Proposer Behavior in the Ultimatum Game
In a one-shot game, a 'Proposer' is given a sum of money and must offer a portion to a 'Responder'. The Responder can either accept the offer (in which case they both get the agreed-upon split) or reject it (in which case both players get nothing). Match each player's motivation to their most likely action in this game.
A 'Proposer' in a one-shot game is given $100 to split with a 'Responder'. The Proposer knows that the Responder can reject the offer, in which case both players receive nothing. The Proposer is not a purely self-interested actor and considers social factors. Arrange the following steps to reflect the Proposer's most likely logical thought process when deciding on an offer.
In a one-shot game where a 'Proposer' offers a split of a sum of money to a 'Responder', experimental results show that Proposers often offer a significant portion (e.g., 40-50%) of the total sum. This behavior, which deviates from the prediction for a purely self-interested actor, indicates that the Proposer's decision is heavily influenced by their perception of social ____.
Analyzing Proposer Behavior Across Different Social Contexts
In a one-shot game, a 'Proposer' is given $10 to split with a 'Responder'. If the Responder rejects the offer, both players receive $0. A purely self-interested Proposer would offer the smallest possible positive amount (e.g., $1), assuming the Responder would accept any gain over nothing. However, in real experiments, Proposers often offer a much larger share, such as $4. Which of the following statements best analyzes the Proposer's strategic thinking behind offering $4 instead of $1?
Learn After
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?