Sequentielle Verteilungsspiele

24 ECONOMIC INQUIRY
Ergebnisse FIGURE 2
TABLE 1
24
Rejection Rate of the (8/2)-Offer
across Games
ECONOMIC INQUIRY
Expected Payoffs for the Proposers
from Different Offers
FIGURE 2
Expected ExpectedTABLE payoff Percentage 1
Rejection Rate of the (8/2)-Offer
payoff Expected of of thePayoffs alternative for of the(8/2)-
Proposers
across Games Game the 8/2-offer fromoffer Differentproposals
Offers
(5/5)-game 4.44 Expected 5.00 Expected31payoff Percentage
(2/8)-game 5.87 payoff 1.96 of of the alternative 73 of (8/2)-
(10/0)-game
Game
7.29
the 8/2-offer
1.11
offer
100
proposals
(5/5)-game 4.44 5.00 31
(2/8)-game 5.87 1.96 73
the rejection rate from 18% to roughly 45%
(10/0)-game 7.29 1.11 100
in the (5/5)-game suggests that intentionsdriven
punishment behavior is a major factor.
Thus, ithe seems rejection that reciprocity rate from 18% is actually to roughly 45%
driven by both in the outcomes (5/5)-game and intentions. suggests that intentionsdriven
we takepunishment a look at the behavior proposers’ is a major fac-
Finally,
(4 subjects) in the (10/0)-game. 7 The nonparametric
Cochran Q-test confirms that the
tor. Thus, the varying it seemsacceptance that reciprocity rate is actually
behavior. Given
of the (8/2)-offer
differences in rejection rates across the four
driven by theboth expected outcomes return andfrom
intentions.
Je günstiger die Alternative für denthis Responder, offer also
games are significant (p < 0001). It also
Finally, varied desto we across take weniger games. a lookTable zufrieden at the1
proposers’ ist
(4 subjects) in the (10/0)-game. 7 The shows non-thaparametric 2) the difference between the
behavior. Given the varying acceptance rate
it was least profitable to propose
confirms er mit (8, that Cochran Q-test confirms that (8/2) the in the (5/5)-game and most profitable in
(5/5)-game and the other three games is
of the (8/2)-offer the expected return from
differences in rejection rates across the the four (10/0)-game. The expected payoff of the
statistically Es geht significant also nicht (p < nur 0001). umPair-wise
Auszahlungen this offer also varied across games. Table 1
games are significant (p < 0001). It alternative also offers exhibits the reverse order.
comparisons that rejection rate
shows that it was least profitable 8
to propose
FFF: Scheinbar confirms that interpretieren the difference die between Spieler Thisthe
indicates u.a. that given the rejection behavior
ofisthe responders, the payoff-maximizing
in the (5/5)-game is significantly higher than
(8/2)
die
in the
Intention
(5/5)-gamedes and most
Proposers
profitable in
(5/5)-game and the other three games
in (Wählt the (2/8)-game statistically
er (8,(p 2) = significant
aus 017, Freundlichkeit two-sided) (p < 0001). and Pair-wise
oder aus the Egoismus?)
(10/0)-game. The expected payoff of the
choice is (5/5) in the (5/5)-game, (8/2) in the
that the difference comparisons between confirm the that (2/8)- theand
alternative offers exhibits the reverse order.
rejection (2/8)-game, rate
8
and also (8/2) in the (10/0)-game.
the (10/0)-game in the is(5/5)-game also highly is significantly (p =
This indicates that given the rejection behavior
of the responders, the payoff-maximizing
higher The than last column in Table 1 shows that the
017, two-sided). in the The (2/8)-game difference (p between = 017, two-sided) the
vastand
majority of the proposers made indeed
(2/8)- and that the (8/2)-game the difference is, however, between only
choice is (5/5) in the (5/5)-game, (8/2) in the
the (2/8)- theand
payoff-maximizing choice in each game.
(weakly) significant if one is willing to apply
(2/8)-game, and also (8/2) in the (10/0)-game.
9
the (10/0)-game is also highly significant Although (p = this proposer behavior is consistentthe
with the assumption that the majority
a one-sided017, test two-sided). (p = 068, The one-sided). difference The
The last column in Table 1 shows that the
between
difference between the (8/2)- and the (10/0)-
vast majority of the proposers made indeed
Ablehnungswahrscheinlichkeit von (8, 2) hängt am Wert der Alternative
(8, 2) wird auch abgelehnt, wenn die Alternative (8, 2) ist – reine U-Aversion
Ähnliche Ergebnisse in Brandts and Sola (2001, GEB). Aber . . .