Literature DB >> 15941131

Why do people reject unintended inequity? Responders' rejection in a truncated ultimatum game.

Yu Ohmura1, Toshio Yamagishi.   

Abstract

Rejection of an inequitable and yet unintended outcome in a truncated ultimatum game was examined in an experiment with 46 undergraduate students (27 men and 19 women) from a large national university in Japan. In an ultimatum game, one of two players, the proposer, makes an offer to divide a fixed-sum of money. The other player, the responder, decides whether to accept or reject the offer. When the responder rejects the proposer's offer, neither of the two players receives a reward. Previous work examining the behavior of participants in the truncated ultimatum game employed strategy method in their experimental design. We examined whether these previous findings would be replicated in an experimental design that did not use the strategy method and instead used the standard one-shot game. Seven out of 46 responders given an inequitable offer rejected it, replicating prior results with the strategy method. We further found that subjects who rejected an offer that was involuntary and yet inequitable did not over-attribute intentions to the proposer's involuntary behavior more strongly than did acceptors. These findings strongly suggest that aversion to inequity is the explanation for the subjects' rejection of the inequitable offer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15941131     DOI: 10.2466/pr0.96.2.533-541

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Rep        ISSN: 0033-2941


  6 in total

1.  The private rejection of unfair offers and emotional commitment.

Authors:  Toshio Yamagishi; Yutaka Horita; Haruto Takagishi; Mizuho Shinada; Shigehito Tanida; Karen S Cook
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-06-29       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  There's something about a fair split: intentionality moderates context-based fairness considerations in social decision-making.

Authors:  Sina Radke; Berna Güroğlu; Ellen R A de Bruijn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-02-17       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  The other side of the coin: oxytocin decreases the adherence to fairness norms.

Authors:  Sina Radke; Ellen R A de Bruijn
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 3.169

4.  The role of cognitive and emotional perspective taking in economic decision making in the ultimatum game.

Authors:  Haruto Takagishi; Michiko Koizumi; Takayuki Fujii; Joanna Schug; Shinya Kameshima; Toshio Yamagishi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 3.240

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

Authors:  Misato Inaba; Yumi Inoue; Satoshi Akutsu; Nobuyuki Takahashi; Toshio Yamagishi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The Development of Theory of Mind and Positive and Negative Reciprocity in Preschool Children.

Authors:  Joanna Schug; Haruto Takagishi; Catalina Benech; Hiroyuki Okada
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-06-29
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.