The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
One person offers a share of a known quantity, say, $100, to a second. The second person knows that they can accept or reject the offer. If player 2 accepts, both receive the reward in the agreed proportion. If the second player rejects the offer, both receive nothing.
Just because I know you love graphs...
From Gamelab, Harvard:
Number of players: 30 (15 games) Mean proposal: 39 ± 10.7 Distribution of proposals:
Notes The vast majority (73%) offers 40 or 50 points. Surprisingly one offer of 40 is rejected Comments The rational strategy is to offer 1 point, and to accept everything. In reality, offers below 30% get mostly rejected. In a vast majority of studies conducted with different incentives in different countries, some 60-80% of proposers offer between 40% and 50% of the total sum, and only 3% of proposers offer less than 20%. Conversely, some 50% of responders reject offers below 30% of the total.
The 'rational', material, utility-maximising response for the proposee is to accept anything offered, even one unit out of 100.
People don't. There appears to be a payoff in depriving the maker of an unfair offer of his/her share, even at cost to oneself.
A repeated scenario would look pretty much, I'd say, like the iterated prisoner's dilemma
The classical prisoner's dilemma:
Two suspects, A and B, are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal: if one testifies for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both stay silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must make the choice of whether to betray the other or to remain silent. However, neither prisoner knows for sure what choice the other prisoner will make. So this dilemma poses the question: How should the prisoners act?
In this one-off situation the rational choice is to betray, because your rational colleague will have come to the same conclusion...
However, when the situation is repeated, between two or many participants, co-operation tends to evolve:
when these encounters were repeated over a long period of time with many players, each with different strategies, greedy strategies tended to do very poorly in the long run while more altruistic strategies did better, as judged purely by self-interest.
So I suspect the experimental result is consistent with people playing as if they were playing an iterated version of the ultimatum game, even if they are aware the rules say the game is a one-off thing. Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Migeru - Jun 15 49 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 17 20 comments
by Katrin - Jun 12 88 comments
by Jerome a Paris - Jun 9 68 comments
by DoDo - Jun 9 22 comments
by Zwackus - Jun 11 64 comments
by Metatone - Jun 8 4 comments
by Ted Welch - Jun 3 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Jun 1720 comments
by Migeru - Jun 1549 comments
by Katrin - Jun 1288 comments
by DoDo - Jun 1126 comments
by Zwackus - Jun 1164 comments
by Jerome a Paris - Jun 968 comments
by DoDo - Jun 922 comments
by Metatone - Jun 84 comments
by DoDo - Jun 671 comments
by DoDo - Jun 418 comments
by Ted Welch - Jun 31 comment
by gmoke - Jun 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 3113 comments
by A swedish kind of death - May 3113 comments
by ceebs - May 2927 comments
by ARGeezer - May 2915 comments
by Zwackus - May 271 comment
by DoDo - May 2631 comments
by DoDo - May 2346 comments
by Metatone - May 1490 comments