Advertisement

Human Nature

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 294–309 | Cite as

Kinship, Family, and Gender Effects in the Ultimatum Game

  • Shane J. Macfarlan
  • Robert J. QuinlanEmail author
Article

Abstract

Kinship and reciprocity are two main predictors of altruism. The ultimatum game has been used to study altruism in many small-scale societies. We used the ultimatum game to examine effects of individuals’ family and kin relations on altruistic behavior in a kin-based horticultural community in rural Dominica. Results show sex-specific effects of kin on ultimatum game play. Average coefficient of relatedness to the village was negatively associated with women’s ultimatum game proposals and had little effect on men’s proposals. Number of brothers in the village was positively associated with men’s ultimatum game proposals and negatively associated with women’s proposals. Similarly, presence of father in the village was associated with higher proposals by men and lower proposals by women. We interpret the effect of brothers on men’s proposals as a consequence of local competition among brothers. We speculate that daughter-biased parental care in this community creates a sense of entitlement among women with brothers, which may explain the inverse relation between number of brothers and women’s ultimatum game proposals. The pattern of results may be consistent with how matrifocality affects cultural models of fairness differently along gender and family lines.

Keywords

Game theory Ultimatum game Kinship Reciprocity Altruism Dominica 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Heather Bonander and Celeste Henrickson for their help administering the ultimatum game. Thanks to John Fountaine of the Dominica Ministry of Community Development, Gender Affairs and Information for much local government assistance. Thanks to Donna Leonetti for generous help developing the manuscript. Special thanks to the people of Bwa Mawego for their good cheer and encouragement.

References

  1. Anderson, C. A., Lindsay, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (1999). Research in the psychological laboratory: truth or triviality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvard, M. S. (2003). Kinship, lineage, and an evolutionary perspective on cooperative hunting groups in Indonesia. Human Nature, 14, 129–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvard, M. S. (2004). Introduction: socioeconomic aspects of human behavioral ecology. Research in Economic Anthropology, 23, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atran, S., Medin, D. L., & Ross, N. O. (2005). The cultural mind: environmental decision making and cultural modeling within and across populations. Psychology Review, 112, 744–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barr, A. (2004). Kinship, familiarity, and trust: An experimental investigation. In J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, & H. Gintis (Eds.), Foundations of human sociality: Economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies (pp. 305–334). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2007). Hamilton’s rule and kin competition: the Kipsigis case. Evolution and Human Behavior, 8, 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandstatter, H., & Konigstein, M. (2001). Personality influences on ultimatum bargaining decisions. European Journal of Personality, 15, s53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chagnon, N., & Bryant, J. (1984). KINDEMCOM: The fourth style in the study of human kinship. Unpublished MS thesis, University of California at Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
  9. Colman, A. M. (1982). Experimental games.. In A. Colman (Ed.), Cooperation and competition in humans and animals (pp. 113–140). Berkshire, UK: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  10. Colman, A. M. (1995). Game theory and its applications (2nd ed.). London: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  11. D’Andrade, R. G. (1989). Cultural cognition.. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 795–830). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  12. Feather, N. T. (2003). Distinguishing between deservingness and entitlement: earned outcomes versus lawful outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 367–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fortes, M. (1969). Kinship and the social order. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  14. Goodenough, W. (1955). Residence rules. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 12, 22–37.Google Scholar
  15. Guth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3, 367–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hagen, E. (n.d.) Descent software. Available at http://code.google.com/p/descent/
  17. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamilton, W. D. (1967). Extraordinary sex ratios. Science, 156, 477–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C. F., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., & McElreath, R. (2004). Overview and synthesis. In J. Henrich, R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, & H. Gintis (Eds.), Foundations of human sociality: Economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies (pp. 8–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kagel, J. H., & Roth, A. E. (1995). The handbook of experimental economics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kurzban, R., & Houser, D. (2001). Individual differences in cooperation in a circular public goods game. European Journal of Personality, 15, s37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marlowe, F. W. (2004). What explains Hadza food sharing. Research in Economic Anthropology, 23, 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Murdock, G. P. (1968). Cognatic forms of social organization. In P. Bohannan, & J. Middleton (Eds.), Kinship and social organization (pp. 235–253). Garden City, NY: Natural History.Google Scholar
  24. Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & van de Kuilen, G. (2004). Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 7, 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Quinlan, R. J. (2005). Kinship, gender, and migration from a rural Caribbean community. Migration Letters, 2, 2–12.Google Scholar
  26. Quinlan, R. J. (2006). Gender and risk in a matrifocal Caribbean community: a view from behavioral ecology. American Anthropologist, 108, 464–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quinlan, R. J., & Flinn, M. V. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of conjugal stability in a Caribbean community. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 43, 569–583.Google Scholar
  28. Quinlan, R. J., & Flinn, M. V. (2005). Kinship, sex, and fitness in a Caribbean community. Human Nature, 16, 32–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Quinlan, R. & Hagen, E. (2008). New genealogy: It’s not just for kinship anymore. Field Methods 2 (2): 129– 154.Google Scholar
  30. Quinlan, R., & Quinlan, M. (2007). Parenting and cultures of risk: a comparative analysis of infidelity, aggression and witchcraft. American Anthropologist, 109, 164–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Quinlan, R. J., Quinlan, M. B., & Flinn, M. V. (2005). Local resource enhancement and sex-biased breastfeeding in a Caribbean community. Current Anthropology, 46, 471–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental design for generalized causal inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  33. Smith, R. T. (1988). Kinship and class in the West Indies: A genealogical study of Jamaica and Guyana. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, E. A. (2003). Human cooperation: Perspectives from behavioral ecology. In P. Hammerstein (Ed.), Genetic and Cultural Evolution of Cooperation (pp. 401–428). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  35. Strauss, C., & Quinn, N. (1997). A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Trivers, R. L., & Willard, D. E. (1973). Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science, 179, 90–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weber, J. M., Kopelman, S., & Messick, D. M. (2004). A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 281–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wright, S. (1922). Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. American Naturalist, 56, 330–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA

Personalised recommendations