Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
11 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Define an ultimatum game.
|
2 person game,
divided between proposer making offer of division, responder who can reject. Rejection = nobody gains |
|
|
Define a dictator game.
|
Ultimatum game with the ability to reject taken away.
|
|
|
Define a trust game.
|
Investor invests money with a 'trustee' and trusts them to pay back enough to make investment worthwhile.
|
|
|
Conflict between self-interest and ethics. Reference.
|
George Siegler, 1981 - When self-interest and ethical concerns are in conflict, most of the time self-interest with win.
|
|
|
Do people respond rationally in ultimatum games?
|
No. Offers typically 20%, rejections 40%.
As should offer smallest, Bs should accept it. |
|
|
How do dictator games differ to ultimatum games? What are the implications?
|
Offer is less - 20%. Shows fear of rejection in ultimatum games with some altruism.
|
|
|
Competition and fear of rejection. Reference.
|
Nine proposers with respondent who accepted highest offer. Second round, most offered whole pie. (Roth et al., 1991)
|
|
|
Experimenter blindness and anonymity. Reference.
|
Double-blind dictator games.
10 blank slips and 10 $1 notes in phone booth. More than half left nothing. |
|
|
Effect of stake size on rejections.
|
Stake size increase = people reject higher amounts, lower percentages.
People value fairness and very large changes in stake may have little effect - against self interest. |
|
|
Inequality vs. Unfairness. Reference.
|
May reject unfair treatment, but may not mind random inequality (e.g. court). (Blount, 1995)
|
|
|
Scope for deceit. Reference.
|
Pretend pie is the small option when actually large. Do not want to appear unfair. (Guth et al., 1996)
|
