The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis
Open accessAbstract
This paper reports the findings of a meta-analysis of 37 papers with 75 results from ultimatum game experiments. We find that on average the proposer offers 40% of the pie to the responder. This share is smaller for larger pie sizes and larger when a strategy method is used or when subjects are inexperienced. On average 16% of the offers is rejected. The rejection rate is lower for larger pie sizes and for larger shares offered. Responders are less willing to accept an offer when the strategy method is employed. As the results come from different countries, meta-analysis provides an alternative way to investigate whether bargaining behavior in ultimatum games differs across countries. We find differences in behavior of responders (and not of proposers) across geographical regions. With one exception, these differences cannot be attributed to various cultural traits on which for instance the cultural classifications of Hofstede (1991) and Inglehart (2000) are based.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind.
Triandis, H. C., & Hofstede, G. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393257 · Cited by 17,696
When Social Outcomes Aren′t Fair: The Effect of Causal Attributions on Preferences
Blount, S. (1995) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1068 · Cited by 814
Meta-analysis: Potentials and promise
Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7119.1371 · Cited by 646
On expectations and the monetary stakes in ultimatum games
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K. A., & Smith, V. L. (1996) · International Journal of Game Theory · doi:10.1007/bf02425259 · Cited by 356
Cited by
“Economic man” in cross-cultural perspective: behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., McElreath, R., Alvard, M., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., et al. (2005) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x05000142 · Cited by 1,898
Why Do Investors Hold Socially Responsible Mutual Funds?
RIEDL, A., & SMEETS, P. (2017) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/jofi.12547 · Cited by 1,378
Oxytocin increases generosity in humans
Zak, P. J., Stanton, A. A., & Ahmadi, S. (2007) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001128 · Cited by 831
The emergence of human uniqueness: Characters underlying behavioral modernity
Hill, K., Barton, M., & Hurtado, A. M. (2009) · Evolutionary Anthropology Issues News and Reviews · doi:10.1002/evan.20224 · Cited by 387
Economic games on the internet: the effect of $1 stakes
Amir, O., Rand, D. G., & Gal, Y. K. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031461 · Cited by 364
Metadata
- Authors
- Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & Van De Kuilen, G.
- Venue
- Experimental Economics
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2004-06
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 171-188
- ISSN
- 1386-4157 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6938
- OpenAlex
- W2571406979
- Cited by
- 828
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 41.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1023/b:exec.0000026978.14316.74
- The paper
- Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & Van De Kuilen, G. (2004). Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis. Experimental Economics. https://doi.org/10.1023/b%3Aexec.0000026978.14316.74
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
