Related Content
Search Google Scholar for:
More Information
Related Jobs from ScienceCareers
|
|
Science 8 September 2000: Vol. 289. no. 5485, pp. 1773 - 1775 DOI: 10.1126/science.289.5485.1773
|
|
Reports
Fairness Versus Reason in the Ultimatum Game
Martin A. Nowak,1*
Karen M. Page,1
Karl Sigmund23
In the Ultimatum Game, two players are offered a chance to win a
certain sum of money. All they must do is divide it. The proposer
suggests how to split the sum. The responder can accept or reject the
deal. If the deal is rejected, neither player gets anything. The
rational solution, suggested by game theory, is for the proposer to
offer the smallest possible share and for the responder to accept it.
If humans play the game, however, the most frequent outcome is a fair
share. In this paper, we develop an evolutionary approach to the
Ultimatum Game. We show that fairness will evolve if the proposer can
obtain some information on what deals the responder has accepted in the
past. Hence, the evolution of fairness, similarly to the evolution of
cooperation, is linked to reputation.
1 Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive,
Princeton, NJ 08540, USA.
2 Institute for
Mathematics, University of Vienna, Strudlhofgasse 4, A-1090 Vienna,
Austria.
3 International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria.
*
To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:
nowak{at}ias.edu
Read the Full Text
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES:
- The private rejection of unfair offers and emotional commitment.
- T. Yamagishi, Y. Horita, H. Takagishi, M. Shinada, S. Tanida, and K. S. Cook (2009)
PNAS
106, 11520-11523
| Abstract »
| Full Text »
| PDF »
- A Path Toward Fairness: Preferential Association and the Evolution of Strategies in the Ultimatum Game.
- Y.-S. Chiang (2008)
Rationality and Society
20, 173-201
| Abstract »
| PDF »
- From the Cover: The collective-risk social dilemma and the prevention of simulated dangerous climate change.
- (2008)
PNAS
105, 2291-2294
- Social Decision-Making: Insights from Game Theory and Neuroscience.
- A. G. Sanfey (2007)
Science
318, 598-602
| Abstract »
| Full Text »
| PDF »
- Heritability of ultimatum game responder behavior.
- B. Wallace, D. Cesarini, P. Lichtenstein, and M. Johannesson (2007)
PNAS
104, 15631-15634
| Abstract »
| Full Text »
| PDF »
- High-testosterone men reject low ultimatum game offers.
- T. C Burnham (2007)
Proc R Soc B
274, 2327-2330
| Abstract »
| Full Text »
| PDF »
- Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict.
- J. Ginges, S. Atran, D. Medin, and K. Shikaki (2007)
PNAS
104, 7357-7360
| Abstract »
| Full Text »
| PDF »
- Tag-based indirect reciprocity by incomplete social information.
- N. Masuda and H. Ohtsuki (2007)
Proc R Soc B
274, 689-695
| Abstract »
| Full Text »
| PDF »
- How Learning Affects the Evolution of Strong Reciprocity.
- J. P. Calderon and R. Zarama (2006)
Adaptive Behavior
14, 211-221
| Abstract »
| PDF »
- Digit ratio (2D : 4D) moderates the impact of sexual cues on men's decisions in ultimatum games.
- B. Van den Bergh and S. Dewitte (2006)
Proc R Soc B
273, 2091-2095
| Abstract »
| Full Text »
| PDF »
- Evolutionary Dynamics of Biological Games.
- M. A. Nowak and K. Sigmund (2004)
Science
303, 793-799
| Abstract »
| Full Text »
| PDF »
- Justice Within Social Dilemmas.
- D. A. Schroeder, J. E. Steel, A. J. Woodell, and A. F. Bembenek (2003)
Personality and Social Psychology Review
7, 374-387
| Abstract »
| PDF »
- The Neural Basis of Economic Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game.
- A. G. Sanfey, J. K. Rilling, J. A. Aronson, L. E. Nystrom, and J. D. Cohen (2003)
Science
300, 1755-1758
| Abstract »
| Full Text »
| PDF »
- Reward and punishment.
- K. Sigmund, C. Hauert, and M. A. Nowak (2001)
PNAS
98, 10757-10762
| Abstract »
| Full Text »
| PDF »
|
|