Ultimatum Game
Poll
 | 16 votes (43.24%) | ||
| | 3 votes (8.1%) | ||
| | 8 votes (21.62%) | ||
| | 3 votes (8.1%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2.7%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2.7%) | ||
| | 1 vote (2.7%) | ||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| No votes (0%) | |||
| | 4 votes (10.81%) |
37 members have voted
1. You are randomly paired with a stranger to participate in the experiment.
2. The facilitator says to both participants that the player to act first will be given $100. Let's call the participant who goes first player A, and the other one player B.
3. Player A may give player B any part of that $100 he wishes, and A keeps the rest.
4. Upon seeing what he is was offered, player B has two choices:
(i) He may accept the offer and both participants walk away with how the money was split, or
(ii) If B feels A was too stingy, then he may choose that both players get nothing.
5. A coin flip determines who gets to act first.
To get the ball rolling, suppose A offered B $45. I think most people in B's shoes would accept that, respecting A's positional advantage. However, if A offered B $5, I think most people in B's shoes would reject it, getting more than $5 worth of schadenfreude (pleasure at the suffering of another) at A's loss.
For the purpose of the poll, suppose you were player A. How much would offer player B? Suppose the choices are limited to those in the poll.
I can't do two polls, but feel free to also comment on what is the least you would accept as player B.
Since it's free money, it should be evenly split. Minus a 10% comission for acting first.
As player A, I think the right amount to offer is $0.01. The idea of someone turning down free money, even if it is only 1 cent, is irrational.
I would offer $55 just because I know that if I were player B, I would be a petulant childish bastich if I was offered less than half. I guarantee leaving with $45 in free money and who cares what B gets.Quote: MoscaAs player B, I think 50/50 would be fair. I would turn down $49, because I would see the other guy as getting over on me for a buck, and I would see that as petty; he'd be doing it because he could, not because he thought there was anything fair about it. I'd rather get nothing than get beat for a buck just because the other guy got to do the splitting.
Now, to make this an equilibrium, we can consider those who offer less than X as "selfish" and those who offer less than Y (say) as "criminals". Then this can be modeled statistically to find an equilibrium point where the populations overall wealth is maximized.
--Ms. D.
Do both parties know what the amount available is before the coin flip? Would your offer be different (proportionally) if the total amount could randomly range between $100 - $10,000, and the amount was not revealed to player B until their decision was locked in?
Quote: cardsharkThe minimum I would accept as player B is $0.
As player A, I think the right amount to offer is $0.01. The idea of someone turning down free money, even if it is only 1 cent, is irrational.
A penny? You get nothing. It only cost me a penny to screw someone trying to take advantage of me.
From Player B's perspective, both players are equal, and neither player actually has anything until the offer is accepted. So Player A may have the money, but Player B has the power. So, as Player B I want an even split. That is what is fair. Both players start even and end even.
Is there negitiation?
In effect both parties have the power... the first to decide on the cake split, the second has the power to decide if there is any cake.
I said $35 orginally, but now, I'm thinking a 50/50 split. The greater the money on the table, the more I'm likely to go 50/50.
Quote: cardsharkThe minimum I would accept as player B is $0.
As player A, I think the right amount to offer is $0.01. The idea of someone turning down free money, even if it is only 1 cent, is irrational.
Since the dollar figure mentioned is so trivial, I would offer to split it evenly. And If offered 1 penny, I can assure you that I would not accept it. I do not believe that turning down the giant sum of one cent can be deemed irrational. The knowledge that someone was so selfish and is benefitting from me keeping the penny would irk me ar more than the loss of the cent.
Quote: SOOPOOThe knowledge that someone was so selfish and is benefitting from me keeping the penny would irk me ar more than the loss of the cent.
Knowing that offering a penny would result in not getting any money at all, a selfish person would offer more.
Yes. Exactly.Quote: NareedKnowing that offering a penny would result in not getting any money at all, a selfish person would offer more.
The key is, trying to figure out where the point is that Player B will let you keep a larger share.
That's why I said $35. Just enough so player be says "That sucks," but not enough that he says "Screw him!"
Quote: DJTeddyBearThe key is, trying to figure out where the point is that Player B will let you keep a larger share.
And that will vary from person to person.
That's one problem with hypothetical questions, you can't use enough information even when you have it. The other problem is just where do you find people eager to give away $100 just to see what happens?
Quote: thecesspitIs it a single offer and acceptance, or iterated?
Is there negitiation?
In effect both parties have the power... the first to decide on the cake split, the second has the power to decide if there is any cake.
I said $35 orginally, but now, I'm thinking a 50/50 split. The greater the money on the table, the more I'm likely to go 50/50.
The cake split analogy is not relevant in this case because when splitting a cake, the first person makes the cut and the second chooses the piece. In this $100 problem player "A" makes the split and also decides who gets which portion of the split. Player "B" at that point only decides whether or not to take his portion or make sure that both players get nothing. As we can see from the varied responses, some people as player "B" will be happy getting any amount of free money and some will be vindictive and take nothing if the offer is anything less than $50. As the amount is only $100 and not a life changing amount, I'd say that a 50/50 split is just about the best way to go. As someone already said, you begin even and you end even. If there could be some arrangement beforehand that the winner of the coin flip gets a larger piece then they could simply decide ahead of time how the money will be split.
Friend Or Foe was fun when they would choose Foe :)
Quote: DorothyGaleSomething is better than nothing. I don't care what my fellow human does, I'd take any offer, even an offer of 0.
This strikes me as being irrational. Isn't it normal human behavior to punish the one who doesn't conform to social norms? Here you were screwed 100% and have nothing to lose by exerting justice. Not doing so would only reward the behavior.
What would you do if somebody stole your car, who was later caught, after he totaled your car. All you have to do is ID the person in a line up, and you know who did it. Would you say, "I get nothing out of him going to jail, so why bother?"
Mr. W., you didn't explicitly state or even imply that there was a "future" in your question. It was a one-off game. In that situation, the best you can do is to take whatever is offered. Who cares about what the other guy gets?Quote: WizardThis strikes me as being irrational. Isn't it normal human behavior to punish the one who doesn't conform to social norms? Here you were screwed 100% and have nothing to lose by exerting justice. Not doing so would only reward the behavior.
What would you do if somebody stole your car, who was later caught, after he totaled your car. All you have to do is ID the person in a line up, and you know who did it. Would you say, "I get nothing out of him going to jail, so why bother?"
If there is a future, where this game will play out multiple times, and there will be feedback, then three classes are needed for stability: those with a sense of being fair, selfish people, and outright crooks. The mix is something like 80-15-5 in society, and that's a consequence of evolution. None of these classes of people is better than any other. Those classes are simply what evolution has created, and we are stuck arguing about the remnants of that process. Pick which you are, and glorify that it is what you are.
Trying to moralize in the face of evolutionary sociology is a sorry task. In the mean time, I suggest Pinker's "The Blank Slate," good stuff, that ...
--Ms. D.
Quote: DorothyGaleMr. W., you didn't explicitly state or even imply that there was a "future" in your question. It was a one-off game. In that situation, the best you can do is to take whatever is offered. Who cares about what the other guy gets?
There is always a future. True, this is a one time only game, but player A will leave and live his life. If he sees that you let him walk with $100 he will think "What a sucker; I should take advantage of people like him/her more often." You never know what your excessive forgiveness will set in motion.
Quote: DorothyGaleIf there is a future, where this game will play out multiple times, and there will be feedback, then three classes are needed for stability: those with a sense of being fair, selfish people, and outright crooks. The mix is something like 80-15-5 in society, and that's a consequence of evolution. None of these classes of people is better than any other. Those classes are simply what evolution has created, and we are stuck arguing about the remnants of that process. Pick which you are, and glorify that it is what you are.
I agree up to "consequence of evolution." Very astute point. However, I totally disagree with where you go from there. The fair group IS better than the other two, in my strong opinion. If we extend your argument further, there should be no punishment for crime at all, because the criminal is equal to the victim. Would that leave us any better as a society?
Quote: DorothyGaleTrying to moralize in the face of evolutionary sociology is a sorry task.
Without the moralizing, evolution wouldn't work.
Of course there should be punishment for crimes. Policemen are necessary for stability ... crime and punishment each exist throughout the animal kingdom, neither is an innately human capacity. No question. But it still doesn't mean any class is superior to any other class. Black Widows murder their male mates. Does that make them immoral? Evolution does what it does, and we're left trying to impose rational frameworks on top of the mess that time created from the goop.Quote: WizardIf we extend your argument further, there should be no punishment for crime at all, because the criminal is equal to the victim. Would that leave us any better as a society?
Really, I think you would enjoy Pinker's book. I'll buy you a copy if you like...
I don't think you really believe this. Otherwise, it would take a long time for tree species to evolve ... and pity the poor plankton ...Quote:Without the moralizing, evolution wouldn't work.
--Ms. (lowly evolved) D.
Quote: DorothyGaleOf course there should be punishment for crimes. Policemen are necessary for stability ... crime and punishment each exist throughout the animal kingdom, neither is an innately human capacity. No question.
If the policeman is necessary for stability, aren't YOU needed to punish player A who gave you nothing? Or do you not consider yourself part of the "fair" group?
Quote: DorothyGaleBut it still doesn't mean any class is superior to any other class. Black Widows murder their male mates. Does that make them immoral? Evolution does what it does, and we're left trying to impose rational frameworks on top of the mess that time created from the goop.
I think a college philosophy class could spend a lot of time on this one. My opinion is that without a principle that it is bad to harm others for your own benefit then the whole criminal justice system makes no sense. It sounds like you're saying that life is meaningless. Are you a nihlist?
Quote: DorothyGaleReally, I think you would enjoy Pinker's book. I'll buy you a copy if you like...
Sure! I'm not above receiving gifts.
Quote: DorothyGaleI don't think you really believe this. Otherwise, it would take a long time for tree species to evolve ...
I'd say we evolved because of thinking like mine. Monkeys have been known to ostracize, or even kill, the member who doesn't fit in, generally because he didn't contribute to the common good. Choosing to screw the stingy player A at some point is a byproduct of such evolution.
I am sure Sarah Palin would say the same thing.Quote: WizardI'd say we evolved because of thinking like mine.
The books are ordered and on their way ... in the mean time, stay away from Monkeys and mud ...
--Ms. D.
Quote: WizardI think a college philosophy class could spend a lot of time on this one.
Why? There's a rather large qualitative difference between people and spiders. Morality doesn't apply to animals, because they lack any ability to reason, and have at most a very rudimentary form of volition. A black widow has no choice in the matter of consuming her mate.
Quote: DorothyGaleI am sure Sarah Palin would say the same thing.
I think she would bristle at the suggestion that the theory of evolution is correct.
Quote: NareedWhy? There's a rather large qualitative difference between people and spiders. Morality doesn't apply to animals, because they lack any ability to reason, and have at most a very rudimentary form of volition. A black widow has no choice in the matter of consuming her mate.
This is getting out of my area, but I disagree. As I mentioned before, monkeys will cast out the one who doesn't contribute to the common good of the tribe. Lots of animals, even bats, remember favors, and repay them. I'm not saying all species have this code of conduct, and black widows are a good example of that. However, I never said that all species are like humans.
Quote: WizardThis is getting out of my area, but I disagree. As I mentioned before, monkeys will cast out the one who doesn't contribute to the common good of the tribe.
Monkeys, which is a vague term for many lower primates, are closest to humans in every respect, including intelligence and volition. I can accept a minor exception there. I mean, they're still animals largely driven by feelings and instinct.
The real question is: what kind of bet can we make to settle this? :)
Quote: NareedMonkeys, which is a vague term for many lower primates, are closest to humans in every respect, including intelligence and volition. I can accept a minor exception there. I mean, they're still animals largely driven by feelings and instinct.
The real question is: what kind of bet can we make to settle this? :)
I remember the speaker at my college graduation at UCSB gave a talk on this. He offered lots of examples of how animals sometimes made personal sacrifices for the common good of their community. His point being that the sense of altruism most of us follow is not unique to humans, and probably a byproduct of evolution. I think that is what Dorothy was trying to say. My response is that just because a sense of morality is not divine doesn't mean that it is meaningless. This point has been discussed in other threads.
A particular example I think I heard at graduation, but may have picked it up somewhere else, is about vampire bats. They go out every night in search of blood to suck. However, sometimes a bat will have a bad night. In those cases, bats that did get their fill regurgitated some blood for the hungry bats. Maybe they didn't understand why completely, but at some level I think they understood that if they gave a favor then there was a sense of quid quo pro that it would be repaid.
About the bet, I'm all ears to ideas. Maybe when we're in Vegas we can try to find some strangers to conduct this experiment on and bet on what they will do. Personally, I set the over/under on what A will give to B at about 1/3 of the total.
Quote: WizardMy response is that just because a sense of morality is not divine doesn't mean that it is meaningless. This point has been discussed in other threads.
I can't disagree with that, as there is no divine morality and there can't be (anyone who disagrees is free to offer concrete evidence to the existence of a deity).
As for the rest, I'd rather not discuss morality in this forum. I admit I started to, and also that I shouldn't have.
It's not exactly the same, but I found this fairly recent study quite interesting. Dogs refuse to cooperate if they perceive unfairness.
Quote: HotBlonde... if I were player B I would accept any amount.
What about nothing? How about 1¢?
Quote: waltomealAs long as folks are bringing up evolutionary arguments and speculating on nonhuman performances...
It's not exactly the same, but I found this fairly recent study quite interesting. Dogs refuse to cooperate if they perceive unfairness.
This study seems rife with observer bias. It is easy to interpret behavior a certain way if it supports the observer's hypothesis. If animals refuse to cooperate in "unfair" situations, why do lionesses expend all the effort hunting, but defer to the males when it comes time to eat? One would expect them to stop hunting for others, unless there was a fair division of the spoils, or start their own "Amazon" pride.
I think people can be divided into three groups for this game: Those who consider the other player's interest above their own (Angels), those who only look out for themselves, even to the detriment of others (Devils), and those who say they are Angels, but are actually Devils (Democrats).
Quote: NareedI can't disagree with that, as there is no divine morality and there can't be (anyone who disagrees is free to offer concrete evidence to the existence of a deity).
Nareed, as the one who put it out there, the burden to prove your statement falls on you, not on those who disagree.
Quote: NareedAs for the rest, I'd rather not discuss morality in this forum. I admit I started to, and also that I shouldn't have.
Not that it can't be discussed, but it will end (as in the other threads regarding this topic) in agreeing to disagree... (or perhaps not agreeing, just disagreeing)
Quote: HotBlondeSo, if I had time to think about it in that situation I would probably choose to let him/her keep the $100 cuz I'd want to be a good person.
As I wrote to Dorothy, I would say that you would actually be a bad person to let player A keep the $100. It would reward him/her for being selfish.
I would liken it to letting all the criminals out of jail as a good deed. It would certainly benefit them, but the negative externality would be the victims of all the crime they would then commit.
Well I am a big fan of Byron Katie. Most of you have probably not heard of her but she teaches a lot on the difference between my business and someone else's business. It's not my responsibility to reward or punish someone else in a case like that. Their decisions and doings in life are completely seperate from my own. And if they are choosing to be stingy then they can do that, they have that right. I wouldn't say it was wrong of them to not share their money. To me I would look at it just the same as if they kept the entire $100 or gave the entire $100 away. In either case it's just a decision.Quote: WizardAs I wrote to Dorothy, I would say that you would actually be a bad person to let player A keep the $100. It would reward him/her for being selfish.
Lord, where did you get that analogy? Was that in the book? I don't think that's a correct analogy and it's a bit extreme. Firstly, I don't know how you think letting all the criminals out of jail would be a good deed. I'm not understanding that. They're there because they committed a crime and that is their punishment, and it's to protect them from victimizing someone again.Quote: WizardI would liken it to letting all the criminals out of jail as a good deed. It would certainly benefit them, but the negative externality would be the victims of all the crime they would then commit.
Quote: HotBlondeWell I am a big fan of Byron Katie. Most of you have probably not heard of her but she teaches a lot on the difference between my business and someone else's business. It's not my responsibility to reward or punish someone else in a case like that. Their decisions and doings in life are completely seperate from my own. And if they are choosing to be stingy then they can do that, they have that right. I wouldn't say it was wrong of them to not share their money. To me I would look at it just the same as if they kept the entire $100 or gave the entire $100 away. In either case it's just a decision.
I don't think I would agree with Katie's philosophy. In this case the experimenter gave you the authority to mete out punishment for bad behavior. That makes it your business.
Quote: HotBlondeLord, where did you get that analogy? Was that in the book? I don't think that's a correct analogy and it's a bit extreme. Firstly, I don't know how you think letting all the criminals out of jail would be a good deed. I'm not understanding that. They're there because they committed a crime and that is their punishment, and it's to protect them from victimizing someone again.
You misunderstand my point. I was extending your logic to an extreme. Let me put it this way. Suppose you or Byron Katie witnesses somebody committing a violent crime. Would you inform the police, or keep your mouth shut because they made a decision that is none of your business.
But it wouldn't be my business to label that person's behavior as bad. You say that that would be bad behavior but I disagree.Quote: WizardI don't think I would agree with Katie's philosophy. In this case the experimenter gave you the authority to mete out punishment for bad behavior. That makes it your business.
I would inform the police.Quote: WizardYou misunderstand my point. I was extending your logic to an extreme. Let me put it this way. Suppose you or Byron Katie witnesses somebody committing a violent crime. Would you inform the police, or keep your mouth shut because they made a decision that is none of your business.
Quote: HotBlondeCrimes usually have terrible consequences. Someone keeping $100 and not giving me any of it would not render a terrible consequence.
I see it as a matter of degree. Even if there is no crime committed, selfish behavior should not go unchecked.
Let's say you are a waitress and slaved over a large party, proving outstanding service. Then you get tipped 1¢. Would you let that go unanswered or confront them about it?
I don't know why you would say that. Why would you want to punish someone for selfish behavior?Quote: WizardI see it as a matter of degree. Even if there is no crime committed, selfish behavior should not go unchecked.
Funny you should ask that cuz I made a living as a waitress for 12 years or so. Tipping is optional and they are allowed to tip as much or as little as they want. Although 15-20% is the norm I could never tell someone what they should or shouldn't do. I would probably be bummed but I would not confront them about it.Quote: WizardLet's say you are a waitress and slaved over a large party, proving outstanding service. Then you get tipped 1¢. Would you let that go unanswered or confront them about it?
The overall wealth of your species has increased, and therefore by trickle down economics, jobs and wealth will eventually increase for the underclass. I would certainly accept 0 by this argument. Of course, this implies a future, so be damned with retribution, we're all republicans now.Quote: HotBlondeHmmm. My immediate thought was if I got nothing then I would choose to have player A receive nothing as well since I would end up the same in the end either way.
F&^#ing KS.
--Ms. D.
Quote: HotBlondeI don't know why you would say that. Why would you want to punish someone for selfish behavior?
For the greater good of society.
Quote: HotBlondeFunny you should ask that cuz I made a living as a waitress for 12 years or so. Tipping is optional and they are allowed to tip as much or as little as they want. Although 15-20% is the norm I could never tell someone what they should or shouldn't do. I would probably be bummed but I would not confront them about it.
That is your right, but I would confront them. I'm not a big fan of the "turn the other cheek" policy.
Quote: DorothyGaleThe overall wealth of your species has increased, and therefore by trickle down economics, jobs and wealth will eventually increase for the underclass. I would certainly accept 0 by this argument.
No, because the experiment host has $100 less money.
I remember watching 20/20 once time and John Stossel did a segment where he criticized very wealthy people for not giving away more money to charities. He said that statistically people of lower incomes gave a greater PERCENTAGE of their incomes than did wealthy people. He was criticizing them face-to-face asking the wealthier people why they weren't giving a bigger percentage of their enormous income. I was very startled and bothered that John Stossel was doing this because I felt that it was completely none of his business at all to criticize people on how much they gave away. If they want to keep every penny of their money that would be their business and no one else's. How dare we as humans go and tell someone else what they should or shouldn't do with their money. That is none of our business, not in the least.
Between 60/40 and 2:1 split seems fair enough to me, and is the way I normally treat windfall gains.
As to what I'd accept, at 25% no doubt, 20% is perhaps where I'd consider it stingy. Anything under 20%, I might consider walking away depending on the exact scenario. Of course it most of all depends on whether I know the other player and what I think of him/her if so.
For larger sums I would tend to put out a larger offer, but lower the acceptance limit. Going to the extreme, if I was getting $1 billion and the other guy $999 billion, I would still accept.
