Ultimatum Game pt. 2

This is a follow up on the Ultimatum Game. Here again, are the rules:

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.

In the original post I asked how much would you offer as player A. This time I'm asking what is the least you would accept as player B. Anything less and you would choose that both players get nothing.

I notice you haven't included any amount above $50 in the poll. If it can be expected that player "A" will always opt to keep an amount above $50, I should think that sometmes player "B" would be just as selfish and/or greedy and decide that if he doesn't get at least 51% or more that both get nothing. Take a guy like Donald Trump as an example. Being as mercenary as he is, I wonder if he'd be more likely to take any amount to add to his pile or if he'd kill the deal if he didn't think he was getting the best of it.

Wow, you slanted your own poll. "I demand half". Isn't that different than "I think half is fair"?

Quote: TheNightfly

I notice you haven't included any amount above $50 in the poll. If it can be expected that player "A" will always opt to keep an amount above $50, I should think that sometmes player "B" would be just as selfish and/or greedy and decide that if he doesn't get at least 51% or more that both get nothing. Take a guy like Donald Trump as an example. Being as mercenary as he is, I wonder if he'd be more likely to take any amount to add to his pile or if he'd kill the deal if he didn't think he was getting the best of it.

To be clear, A and B don't get to negotiate. Think of the decisions being made in separate rooms. I think if Trump were B he would realize he didn't have positional advantage, and would probably accept as little as 5%. His love of money would outweigh ethical considerations.

Quote: Mosca

Wow, you slanted your own poll. "I demand half". Isn't that different than "I think half is fair"?

I might think half is fair too, but would begrudgingly accept less. However, others might insist on half and if they don't get it then screw A. Thus I think somebody who "demanded half" would answer 50%, but somebody who thought 50% was just "fair" might go as low as 30% or so.

Quote: Wizard

I might think half is fair too, but would begrudgingly accept less. However, others might insist on half and if they don't get it then screw A. Thus I think somebody who "demanded half" would answer 50%, but somebody who thought 50% was just "fair" might go as low as 30% or so.

It's not that, it's that you included language with the choices that steers the participants' decisions. If you want accurate results, list the choices without editorial.

Quote: Mosca

It's not that, it's that you included language with the choices that steers the participants' decisions. If you want accurate results, list the choices without editorial.

Okay, point taken. I was trying to help frame the question, since there were some misunderstandings in the other thread.

I think a lot would depend on whether or not I felt I liked or trusted person A. If it were a Jerry Logan type, he'd have to offer half or he gets nothing. Someone nicer might get me to go 60-40, but I'd have no trouble screwing someone who tried to screw me. If I'm starting with nothing I'll happily end with nothing if you end up with nothing, too.

I would take 30. Anything less, and it's, "Hammer Time"

Raises a question of how you would play out the game if it started with each side putting up $50.

Another psychological factor could depend on how the order of players is selected. I'm sure there would be a lot more player-B spite if the choice is made by a third party, less if it was determined by a straw, and considerably less if it involved, for instance, playing out a hand of 21.

Quote: Wizard

This is a follow up on the Ultimatum Game. Here again, are the rules:

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.

In the original post I asked how much would you offer as player A. This time I'm asking what is the least you would accept as player B. Anything less and you would choose that both players get nothing.

It appears that A and B will at least have met each other. In a future post you prevent negotiations. If A seems to be a gang-banger with a shiv in his pocket I will take anything offerred. If A is a smoking hot babe I will take anything offerred. Assuming I have no personal motives other than the money, I would not accept less than $50. The EV of knowing that the greedy person got nothing exceeds the EV of the $50 for me. I think the % will change as the dollar figures go up. If it was $1,000,000 and I was offerred $100,000 I would take the money rather than exact revenge. Each person's own financial situation will affect the answer as well as their feelings about the other player.

There is no option for me in the poll. I want at least 60%, but even that I am not sure I would accept. To be certain, I need 75.

I would take anything offered because if player A was selfish and offered less than $50, I would be equally selfish to let him have nothing. By accepting any offer I would at least show good sportsmanship and be morally superior to player A.