What is Ultimatum Game?

Ultimatum Game is a mental model used for better thinking and decision-making.

How do you apply Ultimatum Game?

To apply Ultimatum Game, identify situations where this framework is relevant, then use it as a lens to evaluate your options and decisions. The model is most useful when combined with other complementary mental models.

What category does Ultimatum Game fall under?

Ultimatum Game falls under the Economics & Markets category of mental models. Other models in this category can be found on the Economics & Markets hub page.

Why is Ultimatum Game important?

Ultimatum Game is important because it provides a structured way to think about problems that would otherwise be approached with intuition alone. Understanding this model helps you avoid common reasoning errors and make better decisions.

Where does Ultimatum Game come from?

Ultimatum Game is discussed in the tradition of Werner Güth / Rolf Schmittberger / Bernd Schwarze.

Ultimatum Game Mental Model…

Ultimatum Game Mental Model… | Faster Than Normal

Economics & Markets

Section 1

The Core Idea

One party proposes how to split a fixed pie. The other accepts or rejects. If rejected, both get nothing. Rational self-interest says the responder should accept any positive share — something beats nothing. In practice, people reject low offers. They pay to punish unfairness. The ultimatum game exposes the gap between economic rationality and human behaviour: fairness norms override pure payoff maximisation.

The proposer holds structural power — they set the split — but the responder holds veto power. A 90/10 offer might maximise the proposer's expected payoff if responders were rational. They aren't. Cross-cultural experiments show rejection rates spike when the responder's share falls below roughly 20–30%. The proposer who ignores fairness risks getting zero. The game forces both sides to account for the other's willingness to burn the deal.

Werner Güth, Rolf Schmittberger, and Bernd Schwarze ran the first ultimatum experiments in 1982. The result contradicted game-theoretic prediction. Later work showed that rejection is partly about signalling — refusing bad deals maintains reputation and deters future lowball offers. In one-shot anonymous play, rejection rates stay high. That suggests intrinsic aversion to unfairness, not just strategic reputation-building. The lesson for negotiators: lowball offers can be rationally rejected. The "rational" move is often to offer enough that the other side feels the deal is fair.

In M&A, the acquirer who lowballs may trigger target management to reject out of principle or to signal they won't be pushed around. In salary negotiations, an offer that feels insulting gets rejected even when it's above the candidate's BATNA. In partnerships, the side that insists on lopsided terms may get a no and both sides walk away from value. The ultimatum structure appears wherever one party makes a take-it-or-leave-it offer and the other can kill the whole deal.

Repeated play and reputation change the calculus. In one-shot anonymous games, rejection is costly for the responder — they give up a positive payoff to punish. In repeated or networked settings, rejecting bad offers can improve future offers by signalling that you won't accept exploitation. The proposer who has a reputation for fair splits may need to offer less to get acceptance because the responder expects fairness. Culture also shifts the fairness threshold: some societies reject at 30%; others at 20% or 40%. The strategic takeaway is invariant — calibrate to the human and the context, not to the rational-agent model.

Ultimatum Game

Popular Mental Models

Continue exploring

The Core Idea

This connects to...

Popular Mental Models

Continue exploring

More like this, in your inbox

The Core Idea

This connects to...