Evaluating a video experiment run in PR China

Asking responders in ultimatum bargaining for only minimal acceptable offers, implicitly assumes strategies to be monotonic. This assumption seems at odds with actual behavior. We report on a group experiment where 53 percent of the responders state non-monotonic strategies. Content analysis of the video-taped discussions shows that social concern, non-expectancy of high offers, emotional, ethical, and moral reasons, group-specific decision rules and aversion against unpleasant numbers are main motives for rejecting advantageous offers. A control experiment with individuals not being observed also displays non-monotonic strategies. Our findings speak to reconsidering assumptions on the parameter space in models of inequity aversion. JEL Classification: C78; C81; C91; C92; F00; O53; O57

[1]  Juan Camilo Cárdenas,et al.  Bringing the lab to the field: More than changing subjects , 2004 .

[2]  楊國樞,et al.  Chinese Values and the Search for Culture-Free Dimensions of Culture , 1987 .

[3]  W. Güth,et al.  An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining , 1982 .

[4]  S. Huck.  Responder behavior in ultimatum offer games with incomplete information , 1999 .

[5]  Charles P. Smith.  Content analysis and narrative analysis. , 2000 .

[6]  E. Fehr,et al.  Fairness and Retaliation: The Economics of Reciprocity , 2000, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[7]  W. Güth,et al.  Fairness in the Mail and Opportunism in the Internet: A Newspaper Experiment on Ultimatum Bargaining , 2003 .

[8]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[9]  Rick K. Wilson,et al.  Confusion or fairness in the field? Rejections in the ultimatum game under the strategy method , 2006 .

[10]  Gary E. Bolton,et al.  ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition , 2000 .

[11]  Charles Bellemare,et al.  Actions and Beliefs: Estimating Distribution-Based Preferences Using a Large Scale Experiment with Probability Questions on Expectations , 2005, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[12]  Ernst Fehr,et al.  Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity , 2001 .

[13]  R. Boyd,et al.  In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small- Scale Societies , 2001 .

[14]  Linda Shields,et al.  Content Analysis , 2015 .

[15]  T. Bewley.  Why Wages Don't Fall during a Recession , 1999 .

[16]  Chun-Lei Yang,et al.  The Hot Versus Cold Effect in a Simple Bargaining Experiment , 2003 .

[17]  Graham Loomes,et al.  SOME LESSONS FROM PAST EXPERIMENTS AND SOME CHALLENGES FOR THE FUTURE , 1999 .

[18]  V. Smith.  Bargaining and Market Behavior , 2000 .

[19]  Robert J. Oxoby,et al.  Sequential decision and strategy vector methods in ultimatum bargaining: evidence on the strength of other-regarding behavior , 2004 .

[20]  Ernst Fehr,et al.  Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity , 2001 .

[21]  Colin F. Camerer,et al.  Outside Options and Social Comparison in Three-Player Ultimatum Game Experiments , 1995 .

[22]  Martin Dufwenberg,et al.  Promises and Partnership , 2006 .

[23]  Rachel Croson,et al.  When Do Fair Beliefs Influence Bargaining Behavior? Experimental Bargaining in Japan and the United States , 2004 .

[24]  T. Cason,et al.  Social Influence in the Sequential Dictator Game. , 1998, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[25]  E. Fehr.  A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation , 1998 .

[26]  Werner Güth,et al.  The Relevance of Equal Splits in Ultimatum Games , 2001, Games Econ. Behav..

[27]  John H. Kagel,et al.  Are Two Heads Better Than One? Team versus Individual Play in Signaling Games , 2005 .

[28]  Ilan Yaniv,et al.  Individual and Group Behavior in the Ultimatum Game: Are Groups More “Rational” Players? , 1998 .

[29]  Gary E. Bolton,et al.  Fair Procedures: Evidence from Games Involving Lotteries , 2000 .

[30]  Ronald Bosman,et al.  Exploring group decision making in a power-to-take experiment , 2006 .

[31]  S. Zamir,et al.  Bargaining and Market Behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An Experimental Study , 1991 .

[32]  Heike Hennig-Schmidt.  Bargaining in a video experiment , 1999 .

[33]  Heike Hennig-Schmidt.  Bargaining in a Video Experiment: Determinants of Boundedly Rational Behavior , 1999 .