Game Theory

Year 2015, , 247 - 273, 30.04.2015

Murat Yalçıntaş

https://doi.org/10.33203/mfy.307968

Cited By: 4

Abstract

One of the models used in game theory is the ultimatum

game, which has frequently been resorted to in the examination

of economic decision-making mechanisms in the behavioral sciences.

Since Adam Smith, traditional economic theory has acknowledged

that individual agents focus more on expected utility in the

decision-making process. However, many case studies conducted

by using ultimatum game theory have demonstrated that many individuals preferred to act with considerations such as fairness,

rather than maximizing expected utility in the economic decision-

making process. The purpose of this study is to examine the

perception of fairness in the ultimatum game, as well as determining

the factors, which have an overall impact on the economic

behavior.

Keywords

Game theory, ultimatum game, economic decision- making, fairness

Ekonomik Karar Almada Adalet Ve Oyun Teorisi

Abstract

Davranış bilimlerindeki ekonomik karar verme mekanizmalarının

incelenmesinde sıklıkla başvurulan oyun teorisi modellemelerinden

biri ültimatom oyunudur. Adam Smith’ten bu yana

geleneksel ekonomik teori, bireyin karar verirken öncelikle kendi

menfaatini öne çıkardığını kabul eder. Fakat ültimatom oyunu

modellemesiyle yapılan pek çok deney, bireyin ekonomik karar

verirken, kendi menfaatini azami hale getirmekten ziyade, adalet

kavramına uygun hareket etmeyi tercih ettiğini göstermiştir. Bu çalışmanın

amacı, ekonomik bir karar modellemesi olan ültimatom

oyunundaki adalet algısını incelemek ve ekonomik davranışa etki

eden unsurlarını belirlemektir.

Keywords

Oyun teorisi, ültimatom oyunu, ekonomik karar alma, adalet

References

• Jensen, K., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. 2007, Ekim 8. Chimpanzees Are Rational Maximizers in an Ultimatum Game. www.sciencemag.org: http://wkprc. eva.mpg.de/pdf/2007/Jensen_Call_Tomasello_2007_chimps_ultimatum_ game.pdf adresinden alınmıştır. Baldursson, F. M. 2006. Rent-seeking and fairness: The case of the Reykjavik Savings Bank. International Review of Law and Economics 26, s. 123-142. Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Niederle, M. 2005. Fairness in Bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization Vol. 56, s. 173-186. Camerer, C. F. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory. Princeton University Press. Cappelen, A. W., Hole, A. D., Sorensen, E. O., & Tungodden, B. 2006, Ocak 13. The pluralism of fairness ideals: An experimental approach. Social Science Research Network: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers. cfm?abstract_id=875303 adresinden alınmıştır Carmichael, F. 2005. A Guide to Game Theory. Essex: Pearson Education Limited. Cox, J. C. 2004. How to identify trust and reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior 46, s. 260-281. Davis, M. D. 1983. Game Theory: A Nontechnical Introduction. New York: Dover Publications Inc. Dixit, A., Skeath, S., & Reiley, D. H. 2009. Games of Strategy, 3th ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc. Falk, A., Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. 2008. Testing theories of fairness—Intentions matter. Games and Economic Behavior 62, s. 287-303. Fisher, L. 2008. Rock, Paper, Scissors. Game Theory in Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books. Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. 1994. Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments. Games and Economic Behavior 6, s. 347-369. Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. 1982. An Experimental Analysis of Ultimatum Bargaining. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 3, s. 367-388. Henrich, J. 1998, Ekim 26. Does culture matter in economic behavior? Ultimatum Game Bargaining among the Machiguenga of the Peruvian Amazon. American Economic Review. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K. A., & Vernon, S. L. 1996. On Expectations and the Monetary Stakes in Ultimatum Games. International Journal of Game Theory, s. 289-301.