It is a common belief that high offers are more readily accepted than low offers. In contrast to this general notion, the current set of studies shows that there is a limit to the beneficial effects of making high offers and that becoming too generous may backfire. This paradoxical finding is observed when offers are made in an ambiguous situation of asymmetric information. In three studies, we found that when bargaining opponents had private information over the total amount that was to be distributed, participants became suspicious about high offers (i.e., offers that were beneficial to themselves), but not about low or equal offers. Due to suspicion, participants rejected high offers more often than equal offers.
AdamsJ. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–436. doi:10.1037/h0040968
2.
BazermanM. H.CurhanJ. R.MooreD. A.ValleyK. L. (2000). Negotiation. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 279–314. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.279
3.
BolesT. L.CrosonR. T. A.MurnighanJ. (2000). Deception and retribution in repeated ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 235–259. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2908
4.
BrandtsJ.CharnessG. (2003). Truth or consequences: An experiment. Management Science, 49(1), 116–130. doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.1.116.12755
5.
CamererC. F.ThalerR. H. (1995). Ultimatums, dictators and manners. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 209–219. doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.1.116.12755
6.
CrosonR.BolesT.MurnighanJ. K. (2003). Cheap talk in bargaining experiments: Lying and threats in ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 51, 143–159. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(02)00092-6
7.
CrosonR. T. A. (1996). Information in ultimatum games: An experimental study. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 30, 197–212. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(96)00857-8
8.
De DreuC. K. W.BeersmaB.SteinelW.van KleefG. A. (2007). The psychology of negotiation: Principles and basic processes. In KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of basic principles in social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 608–629). New York, NY: Guilford.
9.
GüthW.SchmittbergerR.SchwarzeB. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organizations, 3, 367–388. doi:10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7
10.
GüthW.TietzR. (1990). Ultimatum bargaining behavior: A survey and comparison of experimental results. Journal of Economic Psychology, 11, 417–449. doi:10.1016/0167-4870(90)90021-Z
11.
HandgraafM. J. J.van DijkE.De CremerD. (2003). Social utility in ultimatum bargaining. Social Justice Research, 16, 263–283. doi:10.1023/A:1025940829543
12.
KagelJ. H.KimC.MoserD. (1996). Fairness in ultimatum games with asymmetric information and asymmetric payoffs. Games and Economic Behavior, 13, 100–111. doi:10.1006/game.1996.0026
13.
KoningL.SteinelW.van BeestI.van DijkE. (2011). Power and deception in ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115, 35–42. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.01.007
14.
KoningL.van DijkE.van BeestI.SteinelW. (2010). An instrumental account of deception and reactions to deceit in bargaining. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 57–73. doi:10.5840/beq20102015
15.
KuhlmanD. M.MarshelloA. F. (1975). Individual differences in game motivation as moderators of preprogrammed strategy effects in prisoner’s dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 922–931. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.922
16.
LewickiR. J. (1983). Lying and deception: A behavioral model. In BazermanM. H.LewickiR. J. (Eds.), Negotiating in organizations (pp. 68–90). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17.
LoewensteinG. F.ThompsonL.BazermanM. H. (1989). Social utility and decision-making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 426–441. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.57.3.426
18.
MarchJ. (1994). A primer on decision-making: How decisions happen. New York, NY: Free Press.
19.
MessickD. M. (1999). Alternative logics for decision making in social settings. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 59, 11–28. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(99)00023-2
20.
MessickD. M.SentisK. P. (1985). Estimating social and nonsocial utility functions from ordinal data. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 389–399. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420150403
21.
MillerD. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psychologists, 54, 1053–1060. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.12.1053
22.
MoranS.SchweitzerM. E. (2008). When better is worse: Envy and the use of deception. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 1, 3–29. doi:10.1111/j.1750-4716.2007.00002.x
23.
OhtsuboY.MasudaF.WatanabeE.MasuchiA. (2010). Dishonesty invites costly third-party punishment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 259–264. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2009.12.007
24.
OzaS. S.SrivastavaJ.KoukovaN. T. (2010). How suspicion mitigates the effect of influence tactics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.006
25.
PillutlaM. M.MurnighanJ. K. (1995). Being fair or appearing fair: Strategic behavior in ultimatum bargaining. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1408–1426. doi:10.2307/256863
26.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553
27.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
28.
PruittD. G.CarnevaleP. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
29.
RapoportA.SundaliJ. A. (1996). Ultimatums in two-person bargaining with one-sided uncertainty: Offer games. International Journal of Game Theory, 25, 475–494. doi:10.1007/BF01803952
30.
SchellingT. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
SchmittP. M. (2004). On perceptions of fairness: The role of valuations, outside options, and information in ultimatum bargaining games. Experimental Economics, 7, 49–73. doi:10.1023/A:1026210021955
32.
SteinelW.De DreuC. K. W. (2004). Social motives and strategic misrepresentation in social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 419–434. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.419
33.
StraubP. G.MurnighanJ. K. (1995). An experimental investigation of ultimatum games: Information, fairness, expectations, and lowest acceptable offers. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 27, 345–364. doi:10.1016/0167-2681(94)00072-M
34.
ThompsonL. L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 515–532. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.108.3.515
35.
ThompsonL.NadlerJ. (2000). Judgmental biases in conflict resolution and how to overcome them. In DeutschM.ColemanP. T. (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution (pp. 213–235). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
36.
TinsleyC. H.O’ConnorK. M.SullivanB. A. (2002). Tough guys finish last: The perils of a distributive reputation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 621–642. doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00005-5
37.
Van BeestI.van DijkE. (2007). Self-interest and fairness in coalition formation: A social utility approach to understanding partner selection and payoff allocations in groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 132–174. doi:10.1080/10463280701595354
38.
Van DijkE.De CremerD.HandgraafM. J. J. (2004). Social value orientations and the strategic use of fairness in ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 697–707. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.03.002
39.
Van DijkE.VermuntR. (2000). Strategy and fairness in social decision making: Sometimes it pays to be powerless. Journal of Personality and Experimental Social Psychology, 36(1), 1–25. doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1392
40.
WalsterE.WalsterG. W.BerscheidE. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
