Ultimatum bargaining with a group: Underestimating the importance of the decision rule

被引:33
|
作者
Messick, DM
Moore, DA
Bazerman, MH
机构
关键词
D O I
10.1006/obhd.1997.2678
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
The three experiments presented here modified the standard ultimatum game by having a committee of five people either accept or reject offers made by one allocator. Although the decision rule the committee used to decide whether to accept or reject the offer had a large effect on the optimal allocation strategy, we hypothesized that allocators would have difficulty incorporating the implications of the committee's decision rule into their allocation decisions. Experiment 1 found subjects to be very insensitive to decision rule. In fact, decision rule had no effect on allocation decisions. Experiment 2 made the decision rule and its implications more obvious to subjects, but allocations still deviated from the strategies that would have maximized winnings. Experiment 3 provided convincing evidence that the reasons for these deviations from the maximizing strategy have to do with insensitivity to the implications of the group's decision rule and with the difficulty in thinking accurately about the cognitions of others. (C) 1997 Academic Press.
引用
收藏
页码:87 / 101
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Effects of Anger in Ultimatum Bargaining
    Reed, Lawrence Ian
    Okun, Sara
    Cooley, Cameryn
    ADAPTIVE HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND PHYSIOLOGY, 2020, 6 (02) : 236 - 248
  • [42] Sequential decision and strategy vector methods in ultimatum bargaining: evidence on the strength of other-regarding behavior
    Oxoby, RJ
    McLeish, KN
    ECONOMICS LETTERS, 2004, 84 (03) : 399 - 405
  • [43] RULE FOR GROUP DECISION-MAKING
    MCCLAIN, J
    MEDICAL CARE, 1969, 7 (05) : 406 - 410
  • [44] Initial ownership in bargaining: Introducing the giving, splitting, and taking ultimatum bargaining game
    Leliveld, Marijke C.
    van Dijk, Eric
    van Beest, Ilja
    PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, 2008, 34 (09) : 1214 - 1225
  • [45] The Role of Execution Errors in Populations of Ultimatum Bargaining Agents
    Santos, Fernando P.
    Pacheco, Jorge M.
    Paiva, Ana
    Santos, Francisco C.
    CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN DECISION MAKING, COREDEMA 2016, 2017, 10238 : 36 - 50
  • [46] ULTIMATUM BARGAINING BEHAVIOR - A SURVEY AND COMPARISON OF EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
    GUTH, W
    TIETZ, R
    JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PSYCHOLOGY, 1990, 11 (03) : 417 - 449
  • [47] AN ULTIMATUM WAGE BARGAINING EXPERIMENT ON TRADE UNION EFFICIENCY
    Andreou, Adamos
    Andreou, Sofia N.
    Garcia-Gallego, Aurora
    Georgantzis, Nikolaos
    BULLETIN OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH, 2013, 65 (04) : 354 - 361
  • [48] Adaptive learning versus punishment in ultimatum bargaining.
    Bolton, G
    Abbink, K
    Sadrieh, A
    Tang, FF
    JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1996, 40 (04) : 375 - 375
  • [49] Bargaining over waiting time in ultimatum game experiments
    Berger, Roger
    Rauhut, Heiko
    Prade, Sandra
    Heibing, Dirk
    SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH, 2012, 41 (02) : 372 - 379
  • [50] A LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF BARGAINING POWER IN A RANDOM ULTIMATUM GAME
    SOPHER, B
    JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR & ORGANIZATION, 1993, 21 (01) : 69 - 90