1 University of Auckland Winter Week Lectures Fourth Lecture 5 July 2007 Associate Professor Ananish Chaudhuri Department of Economics University of Auckland.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
People, preferences and society Lecture 13 – academic year 2014/15 Introduction to Economics Fabio Landini.
Advertisements

Ultimatum Game Two players bargain (anonymously) to divide a fixed amount between them. P1 (proposer) offers a division of the “pie” P2 (responder) decides.
How coalitions get built: Evidence from an extensive form coalition game with renegotiation & externalities Gary E. Bolton Penn State University, USA Jeannette.
Introduction to Theories of Public Policy
1 On the Methodology of Inequity Aversion Theory.
Game Theory and Behavioral Economics. An Illustration: The 21 Coins Game Rules: In this two person game, the first mover can remove 1, 2, or 3 coins from.
4. EXTENSIVE-FORM GAMES.
Chapter 2 People, Preferences and Society. Human Behaviour Human Behavior in economics is modeled as being purposive: Individuals make choices to take.
Fundamentals of Political Science Dr. Sujian Guo Professor of Political Science San Francisco State Unversity
Chris Starmer TSU Short course in Experimental and Behavioural economics, 5-9 November 2012 Day 4 - Experimental Games.
EC941 - Game Theory Prof. Francesco Squintani Lecture 8 1.
1 University of Auckland Winter Week Lectures Fifth Lecture 6 July 2007 Associate Professor Ananish Chaudhuri Department of Economics University of Auckland.
Experimental Social Sciences: Investigating the Deep Bases of Economic and Political Decisions Alexander K. Koch & Michael Bang Petersen Aarhus, October.
UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Review Midterm3/21 3/7.
Behavioral Game Theory: A Brief Introduction Networked Life CSE 112 Spring 2005 Prof. Michael Kearns Supplementary slides courtesy of Colin Camerer, CalTech.
Developing Principles in Bargaining. Motivation Consider a purely distributive bargaining situation where impasse is costly to both sides How should we.
Motivations and observed behaviour: Evidence from ultimatum bargaining experiment Elena Tougareva Laboratory of Social and Economic Psychology, Institute.
Summer Workshop: Experimental Economics Center for Experimental Business Research (cEBR)
UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Review Midterm3/23 3/2.
Introduction to Game Theory and Behavior Networked Life CIS 112 Spring 2009 Prof. Michael Kearns.
Punishing Unacceptable Behavior Janhavi Nilekani and Sarah Ong.
Playing Unfair: Punishment in Bargaining and Negotiations Deborah Kay Elms IPES Conference November 14, 2008.
AP3: The development of co-operative norms: an empirical investigation Shakti Lamba and Ruth Mace Dept of Anthropology University College London.
UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Review Midterm3/19 3/5.
UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Bargaining and Negotiation Review.
Introduction: Thinking Like an Economist 1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 12 The Logic of Individual Choice: The Foundation of Supply and Demand The theory of economics.
Chapter 1 - The Nature of Economics
Strategic Game Theory for Managers. Explain What is the Game Theory Explain the Basic Elements of a Game Explain the Importance of Game Theory Explain.
Economics for Leaders The Ultimatum Game. Proposal Selection Form Proposer Identification Code __________________ Circle a proposal: 9/1 8/2 7/3 6/4 5/5.
1 University of Auckland Winter Week Lectures Third Lecture 4 July 2007 Associate Professor Ananish Chaudhuri Department of Economics University of Auckland.
Motives and Mechanisms. Theories include causal relations and causal mechanisms. Mechanisms are an essential component of theory.
Proposal Selection Form Proposer Identification Code __________________ Circle a proposal: 19/1 18/2 17/3 16/4 15/5 14/6 13/7 12/8 11/9 10/10 9/11 8/12.
Coalition Formation between Self-Interested Heterogeneous Actors Arlette van Wissen Bart Kamphorst Virginia DignumKobi Gal.
Equity Preferences in Relation to Culture Comparing India, Peru, and the US.
Course Behavioral Economics Alessandro InnocentiAlessandro Innocenti Academic year Lecture 14 Fairness LECTURE 14 FAIRNESS Aim: To analyze the.
Ultimatum bargaining: From synapse to society Colin F. Camerer, Caltech  Ultimatum game: –Proposer offers division of $10; responder accepts or rejects.
Bargaining Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want …; and.
Evolution of cooperation in Stackelberg games Raimo P. Hämäläinen Ilkka Leppänen Systems Analysis Laboratory Aalto University.
Lecture 2 Economic Actors and Organizations: Motivation and Behavior.
Experimental Economics and Neuroeconomics. An Illustration: Rules.
Bob Aumann Center for the Study of Rationality The Hebrew University, Jerusalem Rule Rationality vs. Act Rationality.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright  2008 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. GAME THEORY, STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING, AND BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS.
SES SECONDARY 3. 2 PERSPECTIVES: 1. CLASSICAL ECONOMISTS Stigler: “when self-interest and ethical values with wide verbal allegiances are in conflict,
Exchange, Cooperation, and Reciprocity Liang Jie Nov 4,2002.
Negotiation 101 Fairness and the importance of looking ahead.
Lecture 7 Course Summary The tools of strategy provide guiding principles that that should help determine the extent and nature of your professional interactions.
Motivation This experiment was a public good experiment to see if groups contribute differently than individuals.  intermediate social structure This.
Theory of Mind Enhances Preference for Fairness Haruto Takagishi 1,2, Shinya Kameshima 3, Joanna Schug 1, Michiko Koizumi 1, Toshio Yamagishi 1 1 Hokkaido.
1 Economics 776: Experimental Economics First Semester 2007 Topic 2: Norms and Preferences: Evidence Assoc. Prof. Ananish Chaudhuri Department of Economics.
1 University of Auckland Winter Week Lectures Second Lecture 3 July 2007 Associate Professor Ananish Chaudhuri Department of Economics University of Auckland.
Proposal Selection Form Proposer Identification Code __________________ Circle a proposal: 19/1 18/2 17/3 16/4 15/5 14/6 13/7 12/8 11/9 10/10 9/11 8/12.
TEAM, ORGANIZATIONAL, AND INTERNATIONAL CULTURE Chapter 14.
Procedural Justice in Dictator Games Rethinking the Fairness Hypothesis Mikhael Shor Vanderbilt University September 2006.
Experiments and “Rational” Behavior, 5/1/07. Beauty Contest Game Each person choose a number from 0 to 100. We will average these numbers. The person.
Second lecture: The theory of monopoly, monopsony and bilateral monopoly: the standard microeconomic theory and its limits. Third lecture: The theory of.
Experimental games and economics Ilkka Leppänen Systems Analysis Laboratory Aalto University, Finland.
Bargaining1 Bargaining Behavior A sequential bargaining game Predictions and actual behavior Comparative statics of bargaining behavior Fairness and the.
Yu-Hsuan Lin Catholic University of Korea, Korea University of York, U.K. 5 th Congress of EAAERE, Taipei, 06 th – 07 th August 2015.
FROM HUNTER GATHERERS TO COMPLEX SOCIETIES Chapter 5 – The Development of Social Institutions.
PRINCIPLES OF PERSUASION: MOTIVATING AGREEMENT International Negotiation Strategy: Theory and Practice Spring 2011 Professor Jasper Kim April 13, 2011.
ECON 100 Lecture 7 Wednesday, October 8.
Proposal Selection Form
Behavioral economics Chapter 30
Examples of Laboratory Experiments
ECON 100 Lecture 7 Monday, February 25.
Trust and Markets Daniel Houser Professor of Economics
Unit 4 SOCIAL INTERACTIONS.
Alternative-offer bargainging
Behavioral economics Chapter 30
Chapter 31 Behavioral Economics
Presentation transcript:

1 University of Auckland Winter Week Lectures Fourth Lecture 5 July 2007 Associate Professor Ananish Chaudhuri Department of Economics University of Auckland

2 Recommendations for further reading Thomas Schelling Micromotives and Macrobehavior The Strategy of Conflict Michael Chwe Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination and Common Knowledge by

3 Recommendations for further reading Joseph Henrich et al. (Editors) Foundations of Human Sociality Matt Ridley The Red Queen The Origins of Virtue Nature versus Nurture Genome

4 Recommendations for further reading Robert Putnam Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community Francis Fukuyama Trust – The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity

5 Recommendations for further reading Robert Frank Passions within Reason: The Strategic Role of Emotions Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status

6 Recommendations for further reading Brian Skyrms The Evolution of the Social Contract Tim Harford The Undercover Economist

7 Other-regarding preferences The null hypothesis of game theory is the homo economicus assumption of self- interest But it turns out that in a large majority of cases people exhibit much more nuanced behaviour Other-regarding preferences Conditional Cooperation Fairness Emotions play a role in economic decisions

8 Has $10.00 Offer $X, 0 < X < 10? Keep $(10 – X)? Ultimatum Game Accept? Gets $X Gets $(10 – X) Reject? Gets $0.00 Player 1Player 2

9 Prediction based on self- interest Player 1 should offer only a small amount to player 2 and player 2 should accept since anything is better than nothing. Suppose Player 1 is constrained to make offers in whole dollars - then he should offer $1.00 to Player 2 and keep $9.00 Player 2 should accept this offer since getting $1.00 is better than getting nothing

10 Dictator Game Like the ultimatum game but player 2 has no choice so that the proposed allocation is always implemented. Self-interest prediction: Player 1 should offer only a very small amount to player 2 and player 2 has no choice in this case.

11 The ultimatum game (Güth, Schmittberger and Schwarze) Inexperienced subjects Split DM 4 or DM 10 (multiples of DM 1) All offers above DM 1 Modal x = 50 percent (7 of 21 cases) Mean x = 37 percent

12 The ultimatum game (Güth, Schmittberger and Schwarze) A week later (experienced subjects) All except one offer above DM 1 2/21 offer an equal split Mean offer 32 percent of pie 5/21 of the offers are rejected

13 Do higher stakes change the results? Hoffman, McCabe, Smith (1999): Ultimatum Game with 10$ and 100$ Offers are not dependent on the size of the cake. Rejections up to 30$! Cameron (1995): Ultimatum Game in Indonesia $2.5, $20, $100 (GDP/Person = $670) The higher the stakes the more offers approach 50/50.

14

15

16 Does altruism explain the high first mover offers? Forsythe, Horowitz, Savin and Sefton compare offers in the ultimatum game with those in the dictator games. If player 1 is motivated by altruism alone then offers in the two games should not be different.

17

18 Does altruism explain the high first mover offers Not entirely But the higher concentration of offers around the equal division in the ultimatum game suggests that behavior cannot be fully attributed to altruism. Players do take into account the possibility of rejection of unfair offers.

19

20

21 Does bargaining behaviour vary across cultures? Alvin Roth and colleagues look at behaviour of university students in the ultimatum game played in Jerusalem (Israel) Ljubljana (Slovenia) Pittsburgh (U.S.A.) Tokyo (Japan)

22 Does bargaining behaviour vary across cultures? Looking at modal offers, i.e. offers made by the largest number of participants, they find that in Pittsburgh and Ljubljana the modal offer is 50% while in Jerusalem and Tokyo the modal offer is 40%

23 USA 50% 40% 50% 40% 45%

24 Does bargaining behaviour vary across cultures? Moreover while offers are in general lower in Tokyo and Jerusalem, rejection rates are lower in these two countries as well Thus it seems that the difference is not so much that participants in Tokyo or Jerusalem are “tougher” bargainers but rather perceptions of what constitutes a “fair” offer differ across cultures

25 Are university students in these four countries all that different culturally? McArthur Foundation Norms and Preferences Network led by Ernst Fehr, Colin Camerer, Herbert Gintis, Robert Boyd, Samuel Bowles, Joseph Henrich Look at ultimatum game behaviour in a number of primitive small-scale societies

26 McArthur Foundation Norms and Preferences Network 12 experienced field researchers working in 12 countries over 5 continents gathered data for 15 small-scale societies exhibiting a wide variety of economic and cultural conditions Three foraging societies, six that practice slash-and-burn horticulture, four nomadic herding groups and three sedentary, small-scale agricultural societies

27

28

29 McArthur Foundation Norms and Preferences Network Mean offers in industrialized societies are typically close to 44%, mean offers in this cross-cultural study range from 26% (Machiguenga) to 58% (Lamalera) While modal offers in industrialized nations are around 50%, modes in this study vary from 15% to 50%

30 McArthur Foundation Norms and Preferences Network In industrial nations offers below 20% are rejected in about 5 out of 10 cases, but rejections in these small-scale societies are extremely rare among some groups

31 McArthur Foundation Norms and Preferences Network The large variations across the different cultural groups suggest that preferences or expectations are affected by group-specific conditions, such as social institutions or cultural fairness norms

32 Two important factors that affect offers and rejections Payoff to cooperation How important and how large is a group’s payoff from cooperation in economic production Machiguenga, who are entirely economically independent and rarely engage in productive activities that involve others besides family members, make very low offers Lamalera whale hunters, who go to sea in large canoes manned by a dozen or more individuals requiring close cooperation between them, make more generous offers

33 Two important factors that affect offers and rejections Market Integration How much do people rely on market interaction in their daily lives Those who engage in greater interaction make more generous offers in the ultimatum game

34 McArthur Foundation Norms and Preferences Network Plausible explanation of this behaviour when faced with a novel situation (the experiment), the participants looked for analogues in their daily experience asking “What familiar situation is this game like?” then acted in a manner appropriate for that situation

35 Questions?