Interpersonal comparisons of utility in bargaining: evidence from a transcontinental ultimatum game

This article presents the experimental results of a “Transcontinental Ultimatum Game” implemented between India and France. We use a standard ultimatum game, but in one treatment, Indian subjects made offers to French subjects (ItoF treatment) and, in another treatment, French subjects made offers to Indian subjects (FtoI treatment). We observed that FtoI treatment bargaining mostly ended up with unequal splits of money in favor of French, while nearly equal splits were the most frequent outcome in ItoF treatment interactions. The experimental results are organized through a standard social reference model, modified for taking into account the different marginal value of money for bargainers. In our model, bargaining is driven by relative standing comparisons between players, occurring in terms of real earnings (that is monetary earnings corrected for a purchasing power factor) obtained in the game. The norm of equity behind the equalization of real earnings is called local equity norm, and contrasted to a global equity norm which would encompass the wealth of players beyond the game. According to what we observed, no beyond-game concern seems to be relevantly endorsed by subjects.

[1]  Ken Binmore,et al.  Game theory and the social contract , 1984 .

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

[3]  John H. Miller,et al.  NOTES AND COMMENTS GIVING ACCORDING TO GARP: AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF THE CONSISTENCY OF PREFERENCES FOR ALTRUISM , 2002 .

[4]  W. Güth On ultimatum bargaining experiments — A personal review , 1995 .

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

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

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

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

[9]  M. Rabin,et al.  Understanding Social Preference with Simple Tests , 2001 .

[10]  M. Rabin Published by: American , 2022 .

[11]  Donald V. Moser,et al.  Fairness in Ultimatum Games with Asymmetric Information and Asymmetric Payoffs , 1996 .

[12]  W. Bossert,et al.  Interpersonal Comparisons of Well‐Being , 2004 .

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

[14]  Matthew Rabin,et al.  Incentives for Procrastinators , 1999 .

[15]  H. Oosterbeek,et al.  Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis , 2001 .

[16]  Gary E. Bolton A Comparative Model of Bargaining: Theory and Evidence , 1991 .

[17]  Georg Kirchsteiger,et al.  The role of envy in ultimatum games , 1994 .

[18]  Colin Camerer Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction , 2003 .

[19]  Jordi Brandts,et al.  Reference Points and Negative Reciprocity in Simple Sequential Games , 2001, Games Econ. Behav..

[20]  Martin Dufwenberg,et al.  A theory of sequential reciprocity , 2004, Games Econ. Behav..