Talk:Ultimatum game

message: An anonymous user changed a single 'her' to 'his'.  Since there are two players I used both sexes in order to maintain clarity across the example.  Since the anonymous user only changed a single instance, the sex of the first player changes throughout the article (see the example in the equilibrium analysis section).  I have reverted it, not solely for a political reason, but in order to maintain consistency.  I don't think the sex should be uniformly changed for two reasons: 1. it helps to distinguish between the first and second player while also using pronouns and 2. it helps to counter a sexist linguistic habit without introducing awkward phrases like "them".  Thanks.  --Kzollman 02:22, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the above, but feel compelled to ask you to rethink you're "factual inaccuracy" claim:
# Has there every been an experiment in the Ultimatum game where the endowment was greater than 20 years salary, even in local currency?
# Do you believe that experimental economics has a comparable budget to experimental physics?
# Was there some other point I made in the sentences you deleted which could be described as factually inaccurate, or even questionable?
I believe the answer to all of those question is no, and that you therefore have no "factual" basis for removing my remarks, although you could very well do so on the grounds of "being too colourfull".
I'm very sorry to be so precise on this point, but you can image how Wikipedians don't appreciate being called "factually inaccurate" when that is clearly not the case.
Wragge 00:50, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
:This is probably not the best place to raise this but I just cannot understand your position on gender pronouns. How is using a singular they 'awkward' yet randomly hopping between masculine and feminine somehow not so? Why use 'her' or 'him' at all when you've got a perfectly good gender-neutral pronoun to play with? I can kind of appreciate your attempt to redress the balance of people using 'him' too much but I think it's misguided, I mean if using 'her' caught on you'd only get a counterreaction that would switch back to using 'him'. The only way to settle the problem is to move towards a middle ground and get used to using 'they'. I'm not going to edit the article though because you obviously believe in this and though I think it looks really weird I believe in diversity! Trent 900 00:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth noting that designating one player as one gender and the other player as another, then referring to them by their respective gender-specific pronouns, makes the page smaller while carrying acrost the same amount of information in a simpler format. I don't particularly see any reason to use a gender-neutral pronoun and then call out first and second players as first and second players over and over again when you can just use "him" and "her". Just seems awkward to me. 216.82.142.13 (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  An anonymous user changed a single 'her' to 'his' 

message: The first sentence of the article is mistaken; neither anonymity nor single-play are requirements of the game or part of the definition of the game.  Many variants of the game have been staged, including face-to-face games and repeated-play games.
:I guess that the further article contradicts this assumption (anonymity and single-play). In a single play the best strategy for first person of sharing x is x-1:1 and for second to accept(whatever share he gains bigger then 0). Uzytkownik (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants of the game 

message: I don't think the quote in this section is relevant as the source is very much coloured and certainly not impartial? The linked Foundation for Teaching Economics is a free market vehicle/think tank which received funds from the Scaife Family Foundation, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation amongst others. It appears to push a very contraindicitive message about free market economics and international trade.
http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=1362
The quote from Prof. P.J. Hill of the private Evangelical Protestant Wheaton College and the attending link to the above foundation's 'explanatory' and rather one-sided 'educational' document brings it's validity into question. Perhaps it should be deleted or a proviso added?
:I'm not sure what the concern over bias is here.  The quote begins with "I see...", which can't be biased.  He knows how he sees the world, and is free to comment on it.  Also, your concern about bias  is not allowed at wikipedia, because it constitutes original research.  If, however, you have some third party sources which call the particular quote into question, please do add them to the article.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sociological applications

message: This article was listed as a GA, as far as I can tell, without any discussion or comment. I do not believe that it currently meets the criteria, so I intend to delist it unless we can improve it in the next couple of days. The lead is just a definition, and is inadequate as a summary of the article. The article is not as accessible as it could be, the references are difficult to extract, and the standard of citation is poor. I am concerned that the article may be viewed as original research, since it appears to include a synthesis of primary sources. I will try to address some of these concerns myself over the next couple of days, but I won't be able to fix it entirely myself. Geometry guy 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail: 
I was able to draw out the references, but wasn't able to improve any other aspects. Geometry guy 20:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intention to delist as GA 

message: Who puts up the money in the first place, and why? That person's motivation strikes me as potentially the most interesting aspect of the whole game, yet there's no mention of it. -88.111.83.69 08:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The money is taken to be an externality.  Some money that is stumbled upon by both parties.  Situations exist in trades, for instance.  If you have a widget that is worth $5 to you, and your widget is worth $10 to me, we have a $5 surplus.  If you sell me your widget for $5, you have made no money (you traded an object worth $5 to you for $5), but I "make" $5 because I give you $5 and gain something worth $10.  Alternatively if you sell it for $10, then you make $5 and I make nothing.  You and I have stumbled on a $5 surplus and we must negotiate how to split it.  The ultimatum game presents a circumstance where you state a price for your widget and I either buy it or leave.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Er... huh?

message: Just stumbled across this, not sure if it will be useful to you guys or not:
*
Politizer talk/contribs 14:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source 

message: What is the probability of rejection as a function of x in a split x:(1-x)? Are these probabilities consistent when comparing the results of different experimenters, at least if the ratio of the amount of money at stake and the income of the sample population is the same? Icek (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probabilities 

message: http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091208/full/news.2009.1131.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParasiteNetwork (talk • contribs) 20:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testosterone and the ultimatum game 

message: This game considers money to have an absolute value. It is not the case.
Two persons. Person A gets 10M, person B gets 1M. Then person B may have made an absolute gain of 1M, but they made a lost when compared to person A. You may call that status, buying power or whatever, it is still a lost that is not taken into account by the model. Plus, revenge by refusing to give money to an unfair a**hole is a huge gain worth at least 9M of fake money.
If I had a piece of bread and were in the desert with a starving person, I will give that person half the bread (or more if I'm alright and the person obviously needs more). Let's take a look at the possible motives:
Altruism: could I be altruistic because I feel it's the way to go. If I do not act altruistically, I feel wrong. Therefore, I get the priviledge to feel good because I was altruistic. 
Status: Maybe I did it because of how people will perceive me once they know about my "altruism".
Future gain: Maybe I will get paid back somehow by that person (by Karma?).
Feeling good, a good status and future gain are all "gains". They may have no monetary value but they also have relative values.
All in all, I believe the ultimatum game to be mostly idiotic (at least in the described uses).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.248.232 (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I do not like this game 

message: Somebody should update this with a journal article on linking [superrationality] and this game; if one can be found. Playing with utility function can't possibly explain the way human mind works.
75.142.101.74 (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for Superrationality & Ultimatum journal article. 

message: It seems to me that willingness to accept a smaller share is very much tied up with the experimental pair's individual self-esteems. I posit that a person with high self-esteem is far less likely to take a small share offered by a person with low self-esteem than vice-versa. It would be interesting to set up an experiment with people of varying degrees of self esteem and testing high-high, high-low, low-high and low-low pairings to see what happened. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Self esteem

message: Parts of the article are biased towards showing an innate desire for fairness among players in the ultimatum game. This is clear in the section on Experimental Results. First, it is generally untrue that in experiments "people offer "fair" (i.e., 50:50) splits". I have never seen this experimental result in players developped economies.  The argument of fairness needs to be balanced by the fact that fair splits almost never occur. Second, an explanation for the deviations from the Nash result due to the small size of the sums involved cannot be discarded with obsolete experiments. The much better known Slonim and Roth (1998) result --that appeared at the same time as the not very well known articles cited in Wikipedia (¡from slides!)-- is not mentioned (Roth is the foremost researcher in the area). Finally, there is a recent paper by S. Andersen, S. Ertaç, U. Gneezy, M. Hoffman, and J. A. List in American Economic Review 2011 (3427-3439) that confirms the results of Slonim and Roth, with experiments over a much larger range of sums in play in the game by villagers in India. The range is from 20 to 20.000 rupees (a year's salary), and the results confirm that as the amounts increase, the fraction offered falls.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyg50 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias in the article

message: Slonim and Roth (1998)http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2998575?uid=3737784&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21102421832591
S. Andersen, S. Ertaç, U. Gneezy, M. Hoffman, and J. A. List (2011)http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.7.3427  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyg50 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: References to previous note on Bias

message: In industrialized[2] cultures,[which?] people offer "fair" (i.e., 50:50) splits, and offers of less than 20% are often rejected.[3] 
The "industrialized cultures" part needs clarification. Reference 2 (Sanfey, Alan; Rilling, Aronson, Nystrom, Cohen (13). "The Neural Basis of Economic Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game". Science 300 (5626): 1755–1758. check: ) does not even mention which countries are those. However, the add the following references to support the paragraph:
* W. Guth, R. Schmittberger, B. Schwarze, J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 3, 376 (1982).
* R. H. Thaler,J. Econ. Perspect. 2, 195 (1988).
GameEcon.Behav.10, 95 (1995).
* G. E.Bolton,R.Zwicic,
* A. E. Roth, in Handbookof ExperimentalEconomics, J. H. Kagel, A. E. Roth, Eds. (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton,NJ, 1995).
* See J. Henrichet al. [Am. Econ. Rev. 91, 73 (2001)] for Ultimatum Game research in simple societies.
If someone wants to clarify the section, digging on these sources and specifying the actual countries would be a good start. And the current reference should probably be removed.
-85.55.62.39 (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid reference on "industrialized countries..."

message: Who is invented the Ultimatum game and when?
*Werner Güth, Rolf Schmittberger, and Bernd Schwarze (1982) “An Experimental Analysis of Ultimatum Bargaining,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3:4 (December), 367-388. (Another copy here) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See below at # Who originated the Ultimatum Game? --  the roles of Schelling, Harsanyi and Rubinstein . It looks like Harsanyi has the best claim.editeur24 (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is author? 

message: The section entitled "Equilibrium analysis" discusses Nash equilibrium, but does not consider the possibility of randomly choosing a strategy.  If this is merely an oversight, could someone fix it?  If this is a red flag that the entire section is original research, would someone delete it?  Leegrc (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nash equilibrium and randomization 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ultimatum game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040731061444/http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu:80/fac/uri.gneezy/vita/deadline.pdf to http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/uri.gneezy/vita/deadline.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Dr. Hoffmann has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Hoffmann has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Swee Hoon Chuah & Robert Hoffmann & Martin Jones & Geoffrey Williams, 2005. "An Economic Anatomy of Culture: Attitudes and Behaviour in Inter- and Intra- National Ultimatum Game Experiments," Occasional Papers 13, Industrial Economics Division.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Hoffmann's comment on this article 

message: Dr. Vranceanu has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Vranceanu has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Sutan, Angela & Vranceanu, Radu, 2015. "Lying about Delegation," ESSEC Working Papers WP1502, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Vranceanu's comment on this article 

message: Dr. Chuah has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Chuah has expertise on the topic of this article, since she has published relevant scholarly research:
*Reference : Swee-Hoon Chuah & Robert Hoffmann & Martin Jones & Geoffrey Williams, 2005. "An Economic Anatomy of Culture: Attitudes and Behaviour in Inter- and Intra-National Ultimatum Game Experiments," Discussion Papers 2005-11, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Chuah's comment on this article 

message: The ultimatum game is related to the blackmailer's paradox as mentioned by Robert Aumann in the context of the Israeli-Syrian negotiation. The original citation for the blackmailer term appears in "The theory and practice of blackmail", by Daniel Ellsberg, a Rand institute report (P-3883)from 1968, which is significantly older than 1982, even if not the same (i.e not a single game scenario). While the Robert Aumann references were removed since the Blackmailer Paradox article was very specific, these two reference (i.e, the Ellsberg one, and one citation of Aumann) should be added.
Rosman9 (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackmailer paradox 

message: Nobody gets a cookie, or one can still have some... even just a minuscule bite.
Something or nothing... How should one choose?
Simple analysis of the game:
* Being merely nobody, I have no choice but to accept.
* Being a powerful somebody, I have the choice between both assured cookie or mutually assured destruction.
* Being God-like powered, I effectively become the Ultimate Dictator.
— Wikipedian Right (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The scientific explanation on the prevalence of bureaucratism 

message: I did a quick search and found that while Guth et al. (1982) are credited with the ultimatum game, the term is used by Harsanyi in a journal article in 1961, and one website attributes the idea to Ariel Rubinstein and says he gave the idea to Guth et al.. That article had a reference to an Indiana University web article, but the link is dead. 
So I changed the lead section and History section to reflect that. The idea of the game is probably in Schelling's 1960 book somewhere, which has a lot on commitment and threats. I wouldn't be surprised if the game and the name were "folk wisdom" in the oral lore of game theory for many years. 
I also deleted an unsubstantiated claim that Guth et al. are responsible for the idea of "bounded rationality". That idea is very old. I think maybe the term goes back to Herbert Simon in the 1950's, but I don't know. editeur24 (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who originated the Ultimatum Game? --  the roles of Schelling, Harsanyi and Rubinstein