SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 23 Sayı: 4

How Does Being Trusted Affect Sharing? Findings from the Ultimatum Game

Yıldırım Beyazıt ÇİÇEN
Pages
685–694
Publication Date
2023-10-22
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It was found that the scales used in the test were consistent.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Individual personalities, situational factors, and social interactions impact the fair sharing of justice.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study was conducted on 412 adults and investigated how behaviors were shaped in the Ultimatum Game.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It was found that the scales used in the test were consistent.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Ultimatum game · Reliability · Sharing

Abstract

Individual personalities, situational factors, and social interactions impact the fair sharing of justice. This study was conducted on 412 adults and investigated how behaviors were shaped in the Ultimatum Game. Therefore, three cases were determined, and the bidder was instructed to divide 10 thousand TL first in the typical game. Afterward, it was said that the other person was in need, and the bid was requested to be renewed. At the last stage, bids were received if there was any doubt about the needy. Consistency analysis was performed with the Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Coefficient for the reliability. It was found that the scales used in the test were consistent. According to the typical game, people are more empathetic towards those in need and offer 6667 TL rather than 4264 TL. However, when a question of reliability is raised, 4658 TL is offered regardless of need. The study also found that women made higher offers to people in need than men. There was no statistical difference between the bids when the age range and graduation level differed. The findings show that the neoclassical economics concept of homo economicus, which seeks to maximize utility, is not valid in real life.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇİÇEN, Y. B. (2023). How Does Being Trusted Affect Sharing? Findings from the Ultimatum Game. Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi, Cilt: 23 Sayı: 4, 685–694. https://ajindex.com/articles/968872

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Akerlof, George. A. (1970). The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488- 500. Ankarloo, D. (2002). New Institutional Economics and Economic History. Capital & Class, 26(3), 9-36.
  2. Ardalan, K. (2018). Behavioral Attitudes toward Current Economic Events: A Lesson from Neuroeconomics. Business Economics, 53(4), 202-208.
  3. Bailey, P. E., Ruffman, T., & Rendell, P. G. (2013). Age-related Differences in Social Economic Decision Making: The Ultimatum Game. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68(3), 356-363.
  4. Boyacı, İ., & Sultan, T. (2016). Experimental Evidence on Dictator And Ultimatum Games from Turkish and Pakistani Students. Istanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(29), 319. Camerer, C. F. (2011). Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton University Press.
  5. Cevizli, İ., & Bilen, M. (2021). Duyguların Rasyonel İktisadi Kararlarımız Üzerindeki Etkisi. İnsan ve Toplum, 11(2), 19-46.
  6. Chen, T., Gozgor, G., & Koo, C. K. (2021). Pandemics and Income Inequality: What Do the Data Tell for the Globalization Era?. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 674729. Cimpeanu, T., Perret, C., & Han, T. A. (2021). Cost-efficient Interventions for Promoting Fairness in the Ultimatum Game. Knowledge-Based Systems, 233, 107545. Çetin, T. (2012). Yeni Kurumsal İktisat. Istanbul Journal of Sociological Studies, 45, 43-73.
  7. Demiral, E. E., & Mollerstrom, J. (2020). The Entitlement Effect in the Ultimatum Game–Does it even Exist?. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 175, 341-352.
  8. Demirci, E., & Palancı, O. (2019). Ulusal Yazında Oyun Teorisi Üzerine Genişletilmiş Bir Literatür Taraması. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(29), 530-549.
  9. Dilek, S., & Kesgingöz, H. (2018). Paylaşmak Güzeldir: Bir Ültimatom Oyunu Uygulaması. BMIJ, 6(4), 822-834.
  10. Dilek, S., & Yıldırım, R. (2023). Gender Differences in Wage Negotiations: An Ultimatum Game Experiment. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(1), 195-210.
  11. Eisenkopf, G., Fischbacher, U., & Föllmi-Heusi, F. (2013). Unequal Opportunities and Distributive Justice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 51-61.
  12. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (2006).
  13. The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism–Experimental Evidence and New Theories. Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, 1, 615-691.
  14. Fehr, E., Goette, L., & Zehnder,