Skip to main content

Theoretical Models of Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game: Fairness vs. Reason

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Advances in Cognitive Neurodynamics (V)

Part of the book series: Advances in Cognitive Neurodynamics ((ICCN))

Abstract

According to game theory, a human subject playing the ultimatum game should choose more for oneself and offer the least amount possible for co-players (assumption of selfish rationality) (Rubinstein in J Econ Behav Organ 3(4):367–388, [1]). However, economy, sociology and neurology communities repeatedly claim non-rationality of the human behaviour (Werner et al. in Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, [2]), following the observation that responders reject offers they find too low and proposers often offer more than the smallest amount, thus suggesting that humans’ behaviour is significantly influenced by social norms. We also assume human rationality, but our model describes a human responder via decision process with a reward function respecting fairness as much as the economic profit. This model is positively tested against a set of original experimental data, thus providing an insight into human’s motivation as a social being.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Rubinstein, A.: Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica 50(1), 97–109 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Werner, G., Schmittberger, R., Schwarze, B.: An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 3(4), 367–388 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O.: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1944)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Thaler, R.H.: From Homo economicus to Homo sapiens. J. Econ. Perspect. 14, 133–141 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. van’t Wout, M., Chang, L.J., Sanfey, A.G.: The influence of emotion regulation on social interactive decision-making. Emotion 10(6), 815–821 (2010)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Binmore, K.G.: Game Theory and the Social Contract: Just playing, vol. 2. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., Schwarze, B.: An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 3(4), 367–388 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Knejflová, Z., Avanesyan, G., Guy, T., Kárný, M.: What lies beneath players’ non-rationality in ultimatum game? In: Guy, T., Kárný, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Scalable Decision Making, ECML/PKDD 2013

    Google Scholar 

  9. Guy, T., Kárný, M., Wolpert, D.: Decision Making with Imperfect Decision Makers, vol. 28. Springer, Berlin (2012)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. Lane, A., Luminet, O., Rimé, B., Gross, J.J., de Timary, P., Mikolajczak, M.: Oxytocin increases the willingness to socially share one’s emotions. Int. J. Psychol. (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fiori, M., Lintas, A., Mesrobian, S., Villa, A.E.P.: Effect of emotion and personality on deviation from purely rational decision-making. In: Guy, T., Kárný, M., Wolpert, D. (eds.) Decision Making and Imperfection, vol. 474. Studies in Computation Intelligence Springer, Berlin (2013)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work was supported by the project GA\(\check{C}\)R 13-13502S of the Czech Science Foundation and by the Swiss National Science Foundation grant CR13I1-138032.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tatiana V. Guy .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore

About this paper

Cite this paper

Guy, T.V., Kárný, M., Lintas, A., Villa, A.E. (2016). Theoretical Models of Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game: Fairness vs. Reason . In: Wang, R., Pan, X. (eds) Advances in Cognitive Neurodynamics (V). Advances in Cognitive Neurodynamics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0207-6_26

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics