Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-246sw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-17T20:16:30.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Individual and Group Behavior in the Ultimatum Game: Are Groups More “Rational” Players?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Gary Bornstein  and
Ilan Yaniv
Gary Bornstein
Affiliation:
The Center for the Study of Rationality and Interactive Decisiion Theory and the Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Ilan Yaniv
Affiliation:
The Center for the Study of Rationality and Interactive Decisiion Theory and the Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reports two experiments that compared the standard ultimatum game played by individuals with the same game played by three-person groups. In the group treatment, the members of the allocating group conducted a brief, face-to-face discussion in order to decide, as a group, on a proposed division, whereas the members of recipient group held a discussion on whether to accept or reject the proposal. If the proposal was accepted, each group member received an equal share of his group's payoff (the pie inthe group condition was three times that in the individual condition). In both experiments, groups offered less than individuals. But as indicated by the low rejection rate in both treatments, groups were also willing to accept less.

Keywords

ultimatum gamegroup decision

JEL classification

C78: Bargaining Theory • Matching Theory C92: Laboratory, Group Behavior
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , June 1998 , pp. 101 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Binmore, K., Sahked, A., and Sutton, J. (1985). “Testing Noncooperative Bargaining Theory: A Preliminary Study.” American Economic Review. 75, 1178–1180.Google Scholar
Bolton, G.E. and Zwick, R. (1995). “Anonymity Versus Punishment in Ultimatum Bargaining.” Games and Economic Behavior. 10, 95–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, C. and Thaler, R.H. (1995). “Anomalies: Ultimatums, Dictators and Manners.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. 9, 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J.H. (1992). “Some Compelling Intuitions About Group Consensus Decisions, Theoretical and Empirical Research, and Interpersonal Aggregation Phenomena: Selected Examples, 1950-1990.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 52, 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., and Smith, V. (1994). “Preferences, Property Rights, and Anonymity in Bargaining Games.” Games and Economic Behavior. 7, 346–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Insko, C.A. and Schopler, J. (1987). “Categorization, Competition, and Collectivity.” In Clyde, Hendrick (ed.), Group Processes, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kerr, L.N., MacCoun, R.J., and Kramer, G.P. (1996). “Bias in Judgment: Comparing Individuals and Groups.” Psychological Review. 103, 687–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, D.M., Moore, D.A., and Bazerman, M.H. (1997). “Ultimatum Bargaining with a Group: Underestimating the Importance of the Decision Rule.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 69, 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, A. Sundali, J.A., and Seale, D.A. (1994). “Ultimatum in Two-Person Bargaining with One-Sided Uncertainty: Demand Games.” IIPDM Discussion Paper 119. Haifa University.Google Scholar
Roth, A.E. (1995). “Bargaining Experiments.” In Kagel, John and Roth, Alvin (eds.), Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Roth, A.E., Prasnikar, V., Zamir, S., and Okuno-Fujiwara, M. (1991). “Bargaining and Market Behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An Experimental Study.” American Economic Review. 81, 10681095.Google Scholar
Schopler, J. and Insko, C.A. (1992). “The Discontinuity Effect in Interpersonal and Intergroup Relations: Generality and Mediation.” In Strobe, Wolfgang and Hewstone, Mills (eds.), European Review of Social Psychology, Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar