Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Mar 5;13(3):e0193877.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193877. eCollection 2018.

Preference and strategy in proposer's prosocial giving in the ultimatum game

Misato Inaba  1 , Yumi Inoue  2 , Satoshi Akutsu  3 , Nobuyuki Takahashi  4 , Toshio Yamagishi  3
Affiliations

Preference and strategy in proposer's prosocial giving in the ultimatum game

Misato Inaba et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

The accumulation of findings that most responders in the ultimatum game reject unfair offers provides evidence that humans are driven by social preferences such as preferences for fairness and prosociality. On the other hand, if and how the proposer's behavior is affected by social preferences remains unelucidated. We addressed this question for the first time by manipulating the knowledge that the proposer had about the responder's belief concerning the intentionality of the proposer. In a new game called the "ultimatum game with ambiguous intentions of the proposer (UGAMB)," we made the intentionality of the proposer ambiguous to the recipient. We expected and found that the proposer would make more unfair offers in this new game than in the standard ultimatum game. This expectation can be derived from either the preference-based model or the strategy model of the proposer's giving decision. The additional finding that more unfair giving in the UGAMB was not mediated by the proposer's expectation that the recipient would be more willing to accept unfair offers provided support for the preference-based model. Using a psychological measure of cognitive control, the preference-based model received additional support through a conceptual replication of the previous finding that cognitive control of intuitive drive for prosociality in the dictator game, rather than mind reading in the ultimatum game, is responsible for the difference in giving between the two games.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Graphical representations of the two models of the dictator’s giving in the dictator game and the proposer’s giving in the ultimatum game as a function of their level of cognitive control.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Cumulative distribution of MAO in the UGSTD, the UGAMB and the UGNINT.
The vertical axis represents the percentage of responders whose MAO is the JPY shown on the horizontal axis or less.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Cumulative distribution of giving in the three games (DG, UGSTD, and UGAMB).
The vertical axis represents the percentage of responders whose (proposed) giving to the recipient (responder) is the JPY shown on the horizontal axis or less.
Fig 4
Fig 4. The levels of giving in the DG, the UGSTD, and the UGAMB as a function of the categorized CRT.
Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals in the relevant within-participant condition.
Fig 5
Fig 5
The levels of MAO (Panel A) and expected rejection probability of an unfair offer (Panel B) in the UGSTD, the UGAMB, and UGNINT as functions of the categorized CRT. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals in the relevant within-participant condition.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bowles S, Gintis H. A cooperative species: human reciprocity and its evolution Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2011.
    1. Gintis H. Strong reciprocity and human sociality. J Theor Biol. 2000;206(2):169–179. doi: 10.1006/jtbi.2000.2111 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rand DG, Nowak MA. Human cooperation. Trends Cogn Sci. 2013;17(8):413–425. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.003 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fehr E, Schmidt KM. A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Q J Econ. 1999;114(3):817–868.
    1. Fehr E, Fischbacher U. human altruism–proximate patterns and evolutionary origins. Analyse & Kritik. 2005;27(1):6–47.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources