Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:45:17.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining Unfair Offers in Ultimatum Games and their Effects on Trust: An Experimental Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

David De Cremer ,
Eric van Dijk  and
Madan M. Pillutla
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Unfair offers in bargaining may have disruptive effects because they may reduce interpersonal trust. In such situations future trust may be strongly affected by social accounts (i.e., apologies vs. denials). In the current paper we investigate when people are most likely to demand social accounts for the unfair offer (Experiment 1), and when social accounts will have the highest impact (Experiment 2). We hypothesized that the need for and impact of social accounts will be highest when the intentions of the other party are uncertain. The results provided support for this reasoning.

Type
Special Issue Behavioral Ethics: A New Empirical Perspective on Business Ethics Research
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 107 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Business Ethics 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bies, R. J. 1987. The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. Research in Organizational Behavior, 9: 289–319.Google Scholar
Bottom, W., Daniels, S., Gibson, K. S., & Murnighan, J. K. 2002. When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation. Organization Science, 13: 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, A. 1997. Health-care delivery and resource allocation. In Veatch, R. M. (Ed.), Medical ethics: 321–62. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.Google Scholar
Camerer, C., & Thaler, R. H. 1995. Anomalies: Ultimatums, dictators and manners. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9: 109–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curley, S. P., Yates, J. F., & Abrams, R. A. 1986. Psychological sources of ambiguity avoidance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38: 230–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cremer, D., & Schouten, B. 2008. When apologies for injustice matter: The role of respect. The European Psychologist, 13: 239–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirks, K. T., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. 2007. Understanding the effects of substantive responses on trust following transgression. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Ferrin, D. L., Kim, P. H., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. 2007. Silence speaks volumes: The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity- and competence-based trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 893–908.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, S. T. 2004. Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Frantz, C. M., & Bennigson, C. 2005. Better late than early: The influence of timing on apology effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41: 201–07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, K., Bottom, W., & Murnighan, J. K. 1999. Once bitten: Defection and reconciliation in a cooperative enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9: 69–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. 1971. Relations in public. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. 1982. An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3: 367–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güth, W., & Tietz, R. 1990. Ultimatum bargaining behavior: A survey and comparison of experimental results. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11: 417–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handgraaf, M., van Dijk, E., & De Cremer, D. 2003. Social utility in ultimatum bargaining. Social Justice Research, 16, 263–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, T. & Weigelt, K. 2002. Trust building among strangers. Working paper no. 99-008, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Jones, T. M. 1991. Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16: 366–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagel, J. H., Kim, C., & Moser, D. 1996. Fairness in ultimatum games with asymmetric information and asymmetric pay-off. Games and Economic Behavior, 13: 100–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellerman, B. 2006. When should a leader apologize and when not? Harvard Business Review (April): 73–81.Google Scholar
Kim, P. H., Dirks, K. T., Cooper, C. D., & Ferrin, D. L. 2006. When more blame is better than less: The implications of internal versus external attributions for the repair of trust after a competence versus integrity-based trust violation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99: 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. 2004. Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 104–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, K. M. 1997. Communicating uncertainty: Framing effects in responses to vague probabilities. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71: 55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. 1996. Developing and maintaining trust in working relationships. In Kramer, R. M. & Tyler, T. R. (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Lewicki, R. J., Tomlinson, E. C., & Gillespie, N. 2006. Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence and future directions. Journal of Management, 32: 991–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewenstein, G., & Moore, D. A. 2004. When ignorance is bliss: Information exchange and inefficiency in bargaining. Journal of Legal Studies, 33: 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopes, L. L. 1987. Between hope and fear: The psychology of risk. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20: 255–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. C, Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, D. F 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20: 709–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, I. 2003. Defensive zeal: Compensatory conviction about attitudes, values, goals, groups, and self-definitions in the face of personal uncertainty. In Spencer, S. J., Fein, S., Zanna, M. P., & Olson, J. M. (Eds.), Motivated social perception: The Ontario symposium, vol. 9: 73–92. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Messick, D. M. 1993. Equality as a decision heuristic. In Mellers, B. A. & Baron, J. (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on justice: Theory and applications. Cambridge series on judgment and decision making: 11–31. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, D., Tetlock, P., Tanlu, L., & Bazerman, M. 2006 Conflict of interest and the case of auditor independence: Moral seduction and strategic issue cycling. Academy of Management Review, 31: 10–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohbuchi, K., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. 1989. Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and response to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56: 219–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riordan, C. A., Marlin, N. A., & Kellogg, R. T. 1983. The effectiveness of accounts following transgression. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46: 213–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, A. E., & Murnighan, J. K. 1982. The role of information in bargaining: An experimental study. Econometrica, 50: 1123–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, M., Sitkin, S., Burt, R., & Camerer, C. 1998. Not so different at all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23: 393–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scher, S. J., & Darley, J. M. 1997. How effective are the things people say to apologize? Effects of the realization of the apology speech act. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26: 127–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlenker, B. R. 1980. Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, M. E., Hershey, J. C., & Bradlow, E. T. 2006. Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. 2003. To justify or excuse?: A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 444–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigal, J., Hsu, L., Foodim, S., & Betman, J. 1988. Factors affecting perceptions of political candidates accused of sexual and financial misconduct. Political Psychology, 9: 273–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skarlicki, D. P., Folger, R., & Gee, J. 2004. When social accounts backfire: The exacerbating effects of a polite message on an apology on reactions to an unfair outcome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34: 322–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. 1992. Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105: 131–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. 1985. Personality and social behavior. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology: vol. 2, pp. 883–948. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. 2008. Ethical decision-making: Where we’ve been and where we’re going. Academy of Management Annals, 2: 545–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, Richard. 1988. The ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2: 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treviño, L. K. 2007. Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right, 4th edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G., & Reynolds, S. J. 2006. Behavioral ethics in organizations: A review. Journal of Management, 32: 951–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. 2002. Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34: 1–60.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, E., & Tenbrunsel, A. 2005. The battle between self-interest and fairness in bargaining: Ultimatum, dictators, and delta games. In Gilliland, S. W., Steiner, D. D., Skarlicki, D. P., & van den Bos, K. (Eds.), What motivates fairness in organizations?: 31–48. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar