In three experiments, the authors studied the role of initial ownership of property in bargaining behavior. For this purpose, they created three new variations of the Ultimatum Bargaining Game (UBG): giving, splitting, and taking UBGs. On the basis of insights of loss aversion and the do-no-harm principle, the authors predicted and found that allocations to the recipient were highest in the taking UBG and lowest in the giving UBG. Additional measures to study the underlying mechanism of this effect indicate that the game type effect was mediated by perceptions of entitlement, which allocators did not want to infringe on. Moreover, the effect was not affected by strategic options as provided by deception or power.
Anton, R.J. (1990). Drawing the line: An exploratory test of ethical behavior in negotiations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 1, 265-280.
2.
Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 11, 109-126.
3.
Baron, J. (1995). Blind justice: Fairness to groups and the do-no-harm principle. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8, 71-83.
4.
Baron, J. (1996). Do no harm. In D. M. Messick & A. Tenbrunsel (Eds.), Codes of conduct: Behavioral research into business ethics (pp. 197-213). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
5.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
6.
Bazerman, M.H., Curhan, J.R., Moore, D.A., & Valley, K.L. (2000). Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 279-314.
7.
Blount, S. (1995). When social outcomes aren't fair: The effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 131-144.
8.
Bosman, R., & van Winden, F. (2002). Emotional hazard in a power-to-take experiment. Economic Journal, 112, 147-169.
9.
Bottom, W.P. (1998). Negotiator risk: Sources of uncertainty and the impact of reference points on negotiated agreements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 89-112.
10.
Camerer, C., & Fehr, E. (2006). When does "economic man" dominate social behavior ? Science, 311, 47-52.
11.
Camerer, C., & Thaler, R.H. (1995). Ultimatums, dictators and manners. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 209-219.
12.
Carnevale, P.J. (1995). Property, culture, and negotiation. In D. M. Messick & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Negotiation as a social process: New trends in theory and research (pp. 309-323). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Croson, R.T.A. (1996). Information in ultimatum games: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 30, 197-212.
15.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Carnevale, P.J.D., Emans, B.J.M., & Van de Vliert, E. (1994). Effects of gain-loss frames in negotiation: Loss aversion, mismatching, and frame adoption. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60, 90-107.
16.
Dovidio, J.F., Piliavin, J.A., Schroeder, D.A., & Penner, L.A. (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665-697.
18.
Epstein, Y.M., & Hornstein, H.A. (1969). Penalty and interpersonal attraction as factors influencing the decision to help another person. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 272-282.
19.
Fahr, R., & Irlenbusch, B. (2000). Fairness as a constraint on trust in reciprocity: Earned property rights in a reciprocal exchange experiment . Economics Letters, 66, 275-282.
20.
Fellner, G., & Güth, W. (2003). What limits escalation? Varying threat power in an ultimatum experiment. Economics Letters, 80, 53-60.
21.
Frey, B.S., & Bohnet, I. (1995). Institutions affect fairness: Experimental investigations . Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 151, 286-303.
22.
Güth, W., Ockenfels, P., & Tietz, R. (1992). Distributive justice versus bargaining power. In S. E. M. Lea & P. Widely (Eds.), New directions in economic psychology: Theory, experiment and application (pp. 153-175). Aldershot, UK: Edward Elgar.
23.
Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining . Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 367-388.
24.
Güth, W., & van Damme, E. (1998). Information, strategic behavior, and fairness in ultimatum bargaining: An experimental study. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42, 227-247.
25.
Handgraaf, M.J.J., van Dijk, E., & De Cremer, D. (2003). Social utility in ultimatum bargaining. Social Justice Research, 16, 263-283.
26.
Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. (1994). Preferences, property-rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 346-380.
27.
Kagel, J.H., Kim, C., & Moser, D. (1996). Fairness in ultimatum games with asymmetric information and asymmetric payoffs. Games and Economic Behavior, 13, 100-110.
28.
Kahneman, D. (1992). Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 296-312.
29.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: Analysis of decision under risk . Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
30.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
31.
Lewicki, R.J., & Stark, N. (1996). What is empirically appropriate in negotiations: An empirical examination of bargaining tactics. Social Justice Research, 9, 69-95.
32.
Loewenstein, G., & Moore, D.A. (2004). When ignorance is bliss: Information exchange and inefficiency in bargaining. Journal of Legal Studies, 33, 37-58.
33.
Loewenstein, G.F., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M.H. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 426-441.
34.
March, J.G. (1995). A primer on decision making. New York: Free Press.
35.
Messick, D.M. (1999). Alternative logics for decision making in social settings. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 39, 11-28.
36.
Oxoby, R.J., & Spraggon, J. (2008). Mine and yours: Property rights in dictator games . Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 65, 703-713.
37.
Pillutla, M., & Murnighan, J. (1995). Being fair or appearing fair: Strategic behavior in ultimatum bargaining. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1408-1426.
38.
Pillutla, M., & Murnighan, J.K. (2003). Fairness in bargaining . Social Justice Research, 16, 241-262.
39.
Staub, E., & Noerenberg, H. (1981). Property rights, deservingness, reciprocity, friendship: The transactional character of children's sharing behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 271-289.
40.
Straub, P.G., & Murnighan, J.K. (1995). An experimental investigation of ultimatum games: Information, fairness, expectations, and lowest acceptable offers. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 27, 345-364.
41.
Tenbrunsel, A. (1998). Misrepresentation and expectations of misrepresentation in an ethical dilemma: The role of incentives and temptation. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 330-339.
42.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039-1061.
43.
van Beest, I., van Dijk, E., De Dreu, C.K.W., & Wilke, H.A.M. (2005). Doing harm in coalition formation: Why losses inhibit exclusion and promote fairness cognitions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 609-617.
44.
van Beest, I., Wilke, H.A.M., & van Dijk, E. (2003). The excluded player in coalition formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 237-247.
45.
van Dijk, E., De Cremer, D., & Handgraaf, M.J.J. (2004). Social value orientations and the strategic use of fairness in ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 697-707.
46.
van Dijk, E., & Vermunt, R. (2000). Strategy and fairness in social decision making: Sometimes it pays to be powerless. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 1-25.
47.
van Winden, F. (2007). Affect and fairness in economics. Social Justice Research, 20, 35-51.
48.
Weber, J.M., Kopelman, S., & Messick, D.M. (2004). A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 281-307.
