• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

image

PLAY BUTTON

image

PLAY BUTTON

image

Progress

1/11

Click to flip

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)