Learning in High Stakes Ultimatum Games: An Experiment in the Slovak Republic
Abstract
This paper reports an experiment involving an ultimatum bargaining game, played in the Slovak Republic. Financial stakes were varied by a factor of 25, and behavior was observed both when players were inexperienced and as they gained experience. Consistent with prior results, changes in stakes had only a small effect on play for inexperienced players. But the present experimental design allows us to observe that rejections were less frequent the higher the stakes, and proposals in the high stakes conditions declined slowly as subjects gained experience. This Slovak experiment is the first to detect a lower frequency of rejection when stakes are higher and this can be explained by the added power due to multiple observations per subject in the experimental design. A model of learning suggests that the lower rejection frequency is the reason that the proposers in the higher stakes conditions of the ultimatum game learn to make lower offers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
People tend to be more selfish when the stakes of the game increase.
“Further, several studies have found that people tend to be more selfish when the stakes of the game increase”
From Personality Psychology and Economics (2011) · cites this paper as Slonim and Roth [1998]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 19 · Cited by 512
- Authors
- Slonim, R., & Roth, A. E.
- Venue
- Econometrica
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1998-05
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 569
- ISSN
- 0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2147330019
- Cited by
- 512
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 22
- FWCI
- 63.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Econometrica (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
- Keywords
- ultimatum game, bargaining, learning, experience, financial incentives, experimental design, multiple observations
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