Non-acceptance of Losses - An Experimental Study on the Importance of the Sign of Final Outcomes in Ultimatum Bargaining
Non-acceptance of Losses - An Experimental Study on the Importance of the Sign of Final Outcomes in Ultimatum Bargaining
复制标题
不接受损失——最后通牒谈判中最终结果符号重要性的实验研究
DOI：
10.1007/978-3-319-89920-6_39
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Schosser
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Neumann;Schosser
许多现实生活中的情况，例如，大学内部的预算分配或保险公司之间关于损害赔偿的谈判等，突出分配问题的相关性。在许多相应的情况下，不仅是积极的结果，而且是消极的或积极和消极的组合。以前的研究通常集中在分布问题，出现在增益或损失域或两个域之间的比较。在这项实验研究中，我们专注于两个修改版本的最后通牒游戏中的玩家行为，这些游戏为玩家实现了不对称的战略优势，即，这个博弈允许两个参与者都有正的和负的总收益。我们发现：（1）提议者的讨价还价行为与先前的研究结果一致，即，大多数提议者将馅饼的40%到50%提供给响应者，以及（2）响应者，与关于收益或损失的文献相反，将他们的行为导向收支平衡。他们想收支平衡的愿望似乎比他们想平分的愿望更强烈。
Many real-life situations, e.g., budget allocation within universities or negotiations between insurance companies over compensation for damages, etc., highlight the relevance of distribution problems. In many corresponding situations, it is not only positive outcomes that need to be divided but also negative or combinations of positive and negative ones. Previous research typically focuses on distribution problems that emerge either in a gain or in a loss domain or on a comparison between the two domains. In this experimental study, we focused on the behavior of players in two modified versions of an ultimatum game that implemented asymmetric strategic advantages for the players, i.e., the game allowed for both, positive and negative overall payoffs for both players. We found that (1) the bargaining behavior of the proposers was in line with previous research findings, i.e., most proposers offered between 40 and 50% of the pie to the responder, and (2) the responders, in contrast to literature on gains or losses, oriented their behavior towards breaking-even. Their desire to break-even seemed to act as a stronger motive than their preference to secure an equal split.
DOI：
10.5282/ubm/epub.18175
发表时间：
2013-08
期刊：
Social & Political Philosophy eJournal
影响因子：
--
作者：
W. Güth;M. Kocher
通讯作者：
W. Güth;M. Kocher
收益和损失的连续讨价还价中的认知和框架
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1993
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
Colin Camerer;Eric J. Johnson;T. Rymon;Sankar Sen
通讯作者：
Sankar Sen