Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences

Living Edition
| Editors: Virgil Zeigler-Hill, Todd K. Shackelford

Ultimatum Game

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_880-1



The Ultimatum Game is an experimental paradigm used in behavioral economics. In the Ultimatum Game, two anonymous participants (referred to as players), who typically have never met before, are randomly assigned to either the role of proposer or responder. The proposer receives a predetermined endowment from the experimenter and then has to decide how to split this endowment in any way they like between themselves and the responder. The responder then decides to accept or reject the proposed split. If the responder accepts the offer, the endowed amount is split according to the proposers’ suggested division; if the responder rejects the offer, neither the proposer nor the responder receives any money. Both players are informed about these rules prior to the start of the game, and thus, both players know the consequences when the responder accepts or rejects.


Bargaining situations such as those in the...


Ultimatum Game Dictator Game Proposer Behavior Total Endowment Social Interactive Decision-making 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Bolton, Z. (1995). Anonymity versus punishment in ultimatum bargaining. Games and Economic behavior, 10, 95–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: A theory of equity, reciprocity, and competition. American Economic Review, 90(1), 166–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandstätter, H., & Güth, W. (2002). Personality in dictator and ultimatum games. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 10(3), 191–215.Google Scholar
  4. Brandstätter, H., & Königstein, M. (2001). Personality influences on ultimatum bargaining decisions. European Journal of Personality, 15, S53–S70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  6. Dunn, B. D., Evans, D., Makarova, D., White, J., & Clark, L. (2012). Gut feelings and the reaction to perceived inequity: The interplay between bodily responses, regulation, and perception shapes the rejection of unfair offers on the ultimatum game. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 12(3), 419–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Falk, A., & Fischbacher, U. (2006). A theory of reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2), 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatium bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harlé, K. M., Allen, J. J., & Sanfey, A. G. (2010). The impact of depression on social economic decision making. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119(2), 440.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Haselhuhn, M. P., & Mellers, B. A. (2005). Emotions and cooperation in economic games. Cognitive Brain Research, 23(1), 24–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. H. (1986). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of Business, 59, S285–S300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirchsteiger, G. (1994). The role of envy in ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 25(3), 373–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koenigs, M., & Tranel, D. (2007). Irrational economic decision-making after ventromedial prefrontal damage: Evidence from the ultimatum game. The Journal of Neuroscience, 27(4), 951–956.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Montoya, E. R., Terburg, D., Bos, P. A., & Van Honk, J. (2012). Testosterone, cortisol, and serotonin as key regulators of social aggression: A review and theoretical perspective. Motivation and Emotion, 36(1), 65–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & Van de Kuilen, G. (2004). Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 7, 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pillutla, M. M., & Murnighan, J. K. (1996). Unfairness, anger, and spite: Emotional rejections of ultimatum offers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(3), 208–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300(5626), 1755–1758.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Scheres, A., & Sanfey, A. G. (2006). Individual differences in decision making: Drive and reward responsiveness affect strategic bargaining in economic games. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 2(1), 35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Shamay-Tsoory, S., Suleiman, R., Aharon-Peretz, J., Gohary, R., & Hirschberger, G. (2012). Sensitivity to fairness and intentions of others in the ultimatum game in patients with ventromedial prefontal lesions. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 18(6), 952–961.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. van ‘t Wout, M., Kahn, R. S., Sanfey, A. G., & Aleman, A. (2006). Affective state and decision-making in the ultimatum game. Experimental Brain Research, 169(4), 564–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zak, P. J., Stanton, A. A., & Ahmadi, S. (2007). Oxytocin increases generosity in humans. PLoS One, 2(11), e1128.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Zak, P. J., Kurzban, R., Ahmadi, S., Swerdloff, R. S., Park, J., Efremidze, L., et al. (2009). Testosterone administration decreases generosity in the ultimatum game. PLoS One, 4(12), 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry and Human BehaviorAlpert Medical School of Brown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  2. 2.Institute of PsychologyUniversity of BambergBambergGermany

Section editors and affiliations

  • Patrizia Velotti
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Educational SciencesUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly
  2. 2.Sapienza University of RomeRomeItaly