I wonder what people do in this Ultimatum Game “variant”:
Player A and B have a contest of some sort (for example, they might run a race, or play a game of checkers, or whatever), and the winner of the contest gets to be the one who makes the proposal in the Ultimatum Game.
The game theory is the same, the social context is quite different...
I managed to find this. There is a noticeable tendency for proposers to keep more of the money if they have earned it. This is especially pronounced in the Dictator Game, but also exists in the Ultimatum Game.
Although I can’t recall where I got it from, and Google is failing me, I’m pretty sure there’s a body of experimental evidence along these lines, showing that the second player is overwhelmingly more likely to accept an unfair split if the roles are designated in a way you describe.
I wonder what people do in this Ultimatum Game “variant”:
Player A and B have a contest of some sort (for example, they might run a race, or play a game of checkers, or whatever), and the winner of the contest gets to be the one who makes the proposal in the Ultimatum Game.
The game theory is the same, the social context is quite different...
I managed to find this. There is a noticeable tendency for proposers to keep more of the money if they have earned it. This is especially pronounced in the Dictator Game, but also exists in the Ultimatum Game.
Although I can’t recall where I got it from, and Google is failing me, I’m pretty sure there’s a body of experimental evidence along these lines, showing that the second player is overwhelmingly more likely to accept an unfair split if the roles are designated in a way you describe.
I don’t have time to find an example right now, but I have some experience in this field and just want to affirm sixes_and_sevens’ assertion.