Stake sensitivity and social reasoning in the Ultimatum Game: humans vs. LLM responders

This study examines how large language models (LLMs) respond to varying stake sizes in the Ultimatum Game (UG). Ten LLMs (GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, GPT-4o, GPT-5.1, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Deepseek-R1, Kimi K1.5, Claude Opus 4.1 and Claude Sonnet 4.5) were evaluated to assess their alignment with human decision-making patterns. Results show that, like humans, the majority of the LLM responders reject fewer offers as stakes increase, but they are more sensitive to these changes than humans. LLMs also exhibit a stronger negative relationship between proportion offered and rejection rates and vary in response to initial wealth. A prompt variation for emphasizing human-like behaviour significantly increased rejection rates, suggesting LLMs can distinguish between economic and social decision factors. These findings demonstrate that LLMs can qualitatively simulate human responder behaviour in the UG.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Economics Letters
Published
2026-06-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2026.2694677
Primary Topic
Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Stake sensitivity and social reasoning in the Ultimatum Game: humans vs. LLM responders

Kenneth Romano, Solomon W. Polachek, Ozlem Tonguc
Applied Economics Letters
Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
article

Stake sensitivity and social reasoning in the Ultimatum Game: humans vs. LLM responders

Kenneth Romano, Solomon W. Polachek, Ozlem Tonguc
article en

Abstract

This study examines how large language models (LLMs) respond to varying stake sizes in the Ultimatum Game (UG). Ten LLMs (GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4, GPT-4o, GPT-5.1, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Deepseek-R1, Kimi K1.5, Claude Opus 4.1 and Claude Sonnet 4.5) were evaluated to assess their alignment with human decision-making patterns. Results show that, like humans, the majority of the LLM responders reject fewer offers as stakes increase, but they are more sensitive to these changes than humans. LLMs also exhibit a stronger negative relationship between proportion offered and rejection rates and vary in response to initial wealth. A prompt variation for emphasizing human-like behaviour significantly increased rejection rates, suggesting LLMs can distinguish between economic and social decision factors. These findings demonstrate that LLMs can qualitatively simulate human responder behaviour in the UG.

Applied Economics Letters
Binghamton University (US), IZA - Institute of Labor Economics (DE)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Stake sensitivity and social reasoning in the Ultimatum Game: humans vs. LLM responders — Kenneth Romano, Solomon W. Polachek, et al. · Applied Economics Letters (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS