<p>Has there been any experiments with a variant of the Ultimatum Game where a fair offer is automatically accepted?</p>
<p>For example, the game below, where rule 2 has been added to the classic ultimatum game:</p>
<ol>
<li>Player A is given 100 units of money to divide between the two players.  Player A makes an offer to player B of a division of the 100 units between the two players.</li>
<li>If player A's offer contains at least 50 units for player B, the offer is automatically accepted, and both players get the proposed payouts.</li>
<li>If player A's offer contains less than 50 units or player B, player B may accept or reject the offer.</li>
<li>If player B accepts the offer, both players get the proposed payouts.</li>
<li>If player B rejects the offer, both players get nothing.</li>
</ol>
<p>I expect there to be differences in practice when run on human subjects.  In particular, I would expect there to be a higher frequency of 50-50 offers than a classic ultimatum game, and a lower frequency of offers where player B gets more than 50, but I have no way to speculate how large an effect would actually be observed.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-17T06:57:47.963Z
Seems like you are wondering if people would be willing to be "more generous" in exchange for certainty. I don't know if the experiment you propose has ever been proposed, but I think the 'dictator game' where player A always gets the share they demand has similar motivation, albeit the certainty is given without asking anything in exchange.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-17T17:54:03.437Z
@Giskard the Dictator game is a good upper bound.  Essentially, this is a hybrid between the two
Zags
<game-theory><behavioral-economics>
Ultimatum game where fair offers are automatically accepted
Zags
# Ultimatum game where fair offers are automatically accepted

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-11-16)

Has there been any experiments with a variant of the Ultimatum Game where a fair offer is automatically accepted?

For example, the game below, where rule 2 has been added to the classic ultimatum game:

1. Player A is given 100 units of money to divide between the two players. Player A makes an offer to player B of a division of the 100 units between the two players.
2. If player A's offer contains at least 50 units for player B, the offer is automatically accepted, and both players get the proposed payouts.
3. If player A's offer contains less than 50 units or player B, player B may accept or reject the offer.
4. If player B accepts the offer, both players get the proposed payouts.
5. If player B rejects the offer, both players get nothing.

I expect there to be differences in practice when run on human subjects. In particular, I would expect there to be a higher frequency of 50-50 offers than a classic ultimatum game, and a lower frequency of offers where player B gets more than 50, but I have no way to speculate how large an effect would actually be observed.

**Tags:** game-theory, behavioral-economics
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Seems like you are wondering if people would be willing to be "more generous" in exchange for certainty. I don't know if the experiment you propose has ever been proposed, but I think the 'dictator game' where player A always gets the share they demand has similar motivation, albeit the certainty is given without asking anything in exchange.  
> **username_0**: @Giskard the Dictator game is a good upper bound.  Essentially, this is a hybrid between the two  

---

## 0 answers

