Literature DB >> 23188801

Rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is no evidence of strong reciprocity.

Toshio Yamagishi1, Yutaka Horita, Nobuhiro Mifune, Hirofumi Hashimoto, Yang Li, Mizuho Shinada, Arisa Miura, Keigo Inukai, Haruto Takagishi, Dora Simunovic.   

Abstract

The strong reciprocity model of the evolution of human cooperation has gained some acceptance, partly on the basis of support from experimental findings. The observation that unfair offers in the ultimatum game are frequently rejected constitutes an important piece of the experimental evidence for strong reciprocity. In the present study, we have challenged the idea that the rejection response in the ultimatum game provides evidence of the assumption held by strong reciprocity theorists that negative reciprocity observed in the ultimatum game is inseparably related to positive reciprocity as the two sides of a preference for fairness. The prediction of an inseparable relationship between positive and negative reciprocity was rejected on the basis of the results of a series of experiments that we conducted using the ultimatum game, the dictator game, the trust game, and the prisoner's dilemma game. We did not find any correlation between the participants' tendencies to reject unfair offers in the ultimatum game and their tendencies to exhibit various prosocial behaviors in the other games, including their inclinations to positively reciprocate in the trust game. The participants' responses to postexperimental questions add support to the view that the rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is a tacit strategy for avoiding the imposition of an inferior status.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23188801      PMCID: PMC3528519          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1212126109

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  14 in total

1.  Reciprocity: weak or strong? What punishment experiments do (and do not) demonstrate.

Authors:  Francesco Guala
Journal:  Behav Brain Sci       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 12.579

Review 2.  Evolution of indirect reciprocity.

Authors:  Martin A Nowak; Karl Sigmund
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2005-10-27       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Prosocials prefer equal outcomes to maximizing joint outcomes.

Authors:  Daniel Eek; Tommy Gärling
Journal:  Br J Soc Psychol       Date:  2006-06

4.  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

5.  Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: theory and preliminary evidence.

Authors:  P A Van Lange; W Otten; E M De Bruin; J A Joireman
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1997-10

6.  Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms.

Authors:  Ernst Fehr; Urs Fischbacher; Simon Gächter
Journal:  Hum Nat       Date:  2002-03

7.  Emotion expression in human punishment behavior.

Authors:  Erte Xiao; Daniel Houser
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-05-06       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  The evolution of altruistic punishment.

Authors:  Robert Boyd; Herbert Gintis; Samuel Bowles; Peter J Richerson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-03-11       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  The evolution of strong reciprocity: cooperation in heterogeneous populations.

Authors:  Samuel Bowles; Herbert Gintis
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 1.570

10.  High-testosterone men reject low ultimatum game offers.

Authors:  Terence C Burnham
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2007-09-22       Impact factor: 5.349

View more
  61 in total

1.  Reply to Jensen et al.: Equitable offers are not rationally maximizing.

Authors:  Darby Proctor; Rebecca A Williamson; Frans B M de Waal; Sarah F Brosnan
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  The role of self-interest in elite bargaining.

Authors:  Brad L LeVeck; D Alex Hughes; James H Fowler; Emilie Hafner-Burton; David G Victor
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Need for conclusive evidence that positive and negative reciprocity are unrelated.

Authors:  Boris Egloff; David Richter; Stefan C Schmukle
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-02-04       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Reply to Egloff et al.: On the relationship between positive and negative reciprocity.

Authors:  Toshio Yamagishi
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-02-26       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  The evolution of fairness through spite.

Authors:  Patrick Forber; Rory Smead
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  The Myth of a Previous Asocial State: some Criticisms and Reflections.

Authors:  Ángela Karina Ávila Hernández
Journal:  Integr Psychol Behav Sci       Date:  2021-06

7.  Basal testosterone's relationship with dictator game decision-making depends on cortisol reactivity to acute stress: A dual-hormone perspective on dominant behavior during resource allocation.

Authors:  Smrithi Prasad; Erik L Knight; Pranjal H Mehta
Journal:  Psychoneuroendocrinology       Date:  2018-11-10       Impact factor: 4.905

8.  From good institutions to generous citizens: Top-down incentives to cooperate promote subsequent prosociality but not norm enforcement.

Authors:  Michael N Stagnaro; Antonio A Arechar; David G Rand
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2017-02-27

9.  Digit ratio (2D : 4D) and prosocial behaviour in economic games: no direct correlation with generosity, bargaining or trust-related behaviours.

Authors:  Pablo Brañas-Garza; Antonio M Espín; Teresa García-Muñoz; Jaromír Kovářík
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 3.703

10.  Cortical thickness of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex predicts strategic choices in economic games.

Authors:  Toshio Yamagishi; Haruto Takagishi; Alan de Souza Rodrigues Fermin; Ryota Kanai; Yang Li; Yoshie Matsumoto
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.