IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ratsoc/v20y2008i2p173-201.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Path Toward Fairness

Author

Listed:
  • Yen-Sheng Chiang

    (Condon Hall, Box 353340 Seattle, WA 98195, US, yen506@u.washington.edu)

Abstract

Recent experimental findings on behavioral games show that subjects do not behave in a self-interest-maximizing manner as would be predicted by game theory. An evolutionary approach attempts to explain why 'irrational' strategies can be dominant in the long run. The article presents an evolutionary model of the Ultimatum game by considering the impact of interaction structure. The question of interest is: will the dominant strategy in evolution be different from the Nash-equilibrium strategy if players are allowed to choose partners they prefer based on the reinforcements (payoffs) from past interactions? Numerical simulation shows that the strategies of fairness could evolve to be dominant. Conditions of the emergence and its properties are discussed. The model offers a supplementary theoretical account for recent field work that indicates a positive association between market integration and the likelihood of making fair offers in the Ultimatum game (Henrich et al. 2004).

Suggested Citation

  • Yen-Sheng Chiang, 2008. "A Path Toward Fairness," Rationality and Society, , vol. 20(2), pages 173-201, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:20:y:2008:i:2:p:173-201
    DOI: 10.1177/1043463108089544
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043463108089544
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1043463108089544?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chaim Fershtman & Uri Gneezy, 2001. "Discrimination in a Segmented Society: An Experimental Approach," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 351-377.
    2. Christine M. Beckman & Pamela R. Haunschild & Damon J. Phillips, 2004. "Friends or Strangers? Firm-Specific Uncertainty, Market Uncertainty, and Network Partner Selection," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 259-275, June.
    3. R. Cowan & N. Jonard & J. -B. Zimmermann, 2007. "Evolving networks of inventors," Springer Books, in: Uwe Cantner & Franco Malerba (ed.), Innovation, Industrial Dynamics and Structural Transformation, pages 129-148, Springer.
    4. Gad Saad & Tripat Gill, 2001. "Sex Differences in the Ultimatum Game: An Evolutionary Psychology Perspective," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 171-193, May.
    5. Hirschman, Albert O, 1982. "Rival Interpretations of Market Society: Civilizing, Destructive, or Feeble?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(4), pages 1463-1484, December.
    6. Kenneth L. Judd, 1998. "Numerical Methods in Economics," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262100711, December.
    7. William Harms, 1997. "Evolution And Ultimatum Bargaining," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 147-175, March.
    8. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2004. "Social norms and human cooperation," Macroeconomics 0409026, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Weisbuch, Gerard & Kirman, Alan & Herreiner, Dorothea, 2000. "Market Organisation and Trading Relationships," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 411-436, April.
    10. Murnighan, J. Keith & Saxon, Michael Scott, 1998. "Ultimatum bargaining by children and adults," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 415-445, August.
    11. Francisco C Santos & Jorge M Pacheco & Tom Lenaerts, 2006. "Cooperation Prevails When Individuals Adjust Their Social Ties," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(10), pages 1-8, October.
    12. Guth, Werner, 1995. "On ultimatum bargaining experiments -- A personal review," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 329-344, August.
    13. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Alexander Peterhansl & Peter S. Dodds & Duncan J. Watts, 2007. "Cooperation in Evolving Social Networks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(7), pages 1036-1050, July.
    14. Theodore C. Bergstrom, 2003. "The Algebra of Assortative Encounters and the Evolution of Cooperation," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(03), pages 211-228.
    15. Solnick, Sara J, 2001. "Gender Differences in the Ultimatum Game," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(2), pages 189-200, April.
    16. Hessel Oosterbeek & Randolph Sloof & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2004. "Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 171-188, June.
    17. Piergiuseppe Morone & Richard Taylor, 2004. "Knowledge diffusion dynamics and network properties of face-to-face interactions," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 327-351, July.
    18. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    19. Michael D. Cohen & Rick L. Riolo & Robert Axelrod, 2001. "The Role Of Social Structure In The Maintenance Of Cooperative Regimes," Rationality and Society, , vol. 13(1), pages 5-32, February.
    20. Geertz, Clifford, 1978. "The Bazaar Economy: Information and Search in Peasant Marketing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 28-32, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mayuko Nakamaru & Akira Yokoyama, 2014. "The Effect of Ostracism and Optional Participation on the Evolution of Cooperation in the Voluntary Public Goods Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-9, September.
    2. Chen, Josie I & Kamei, Kenju, 2014. "Expressing Emotion and Fairness Crowding-out in an Ultimatum Game with Incomplete Information," MPRA Paper 54405, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Takuya Sekiguchi & Hisashi Ohtsuki, 2017. "Fixation Probabilities of Strategies for Bimatrix Games in Finite Populations," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 93-111, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    2. Jun Luo & Yefeng Chen & Haoran He & Guanlin Gao, 2019. "Hukou identity and fairness in the ultimatum game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 389-420, October.
    3. Ainhoa Jaramillo Gutiérrez & Nikolaos Georgantzis & Aurora García Gallego & Miguel Ginés Vilar, 2007. "Cultural And Risk-Related Determinants Of Gender Differences In Ultimatum Bargaining," Working Papers. Serie AD 2007-08, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    4. Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Hoffmann, Robert & Jones, Martin & Williams, Geoffrey, 2009. "An economic anatomy of culture: Attitudes and behaviour in inter- and intra-national ultimatum game experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 732-744, October.
    5. Alexander Lenger & Stephan Wolf & Nils Goldschmidt, 2021. "Choosing inequality: how economic security fosters competitive regimes," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(2), pages 315-346, June.
    6. Griffin, John & Nickerson, David & Wozniak, Abigail, 2012. "Racial differences in inequality aversion: Evidence from real world respondents in the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 600-617.
    7. Liqi Zhu & Gerd Gigerenzer & Gang Huangfu, 2013. "Psychological Traces of China's Socio-Economic Reforms in the Ultimatum and Dictator Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-6, August.
    8. Tatiana Kozitsina & Anna Mikhaylova & Anna Komkova & Anastasia Peshkovskaya & Anna Sedush & Olga Menshikova & Mikhail Myagkov & Ivan Menshikov, 2020. "Ethnicity and gender influence the decision making in a multinational state: The case of Russia," Papers 2012.01272, arXiv.org.
    9. Sun-Ki Chai & Dolgorsuren Dorj & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2018. "Cultural Values and Behavior in Dictator, Ultimatum, and Trust Games: An Experimental Study," Research in Experimental Economics, in: Experimental Economics and Culture, volume 20, pages 89-166, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    10. Michael Foley & Rory Smead & Patrick Forber & Christoph Riedl, 2021. "Avoiding the bullies: The resilience of cooperation among unequals," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, April.
    11. Fabian Dvorak & Regina Stumpf & Sebastian Fehrler & Urs Fischbacher, 2024. "Generative AI Triggers Welfare-Reducing Decisions in Humans," Papers 2401.12773, arXiv.org.
    12. Thorsten Chmura & Christoph Engel & Markus Englerth, 2013. "Selfishness As a Potential Cause of Crime. A Prison Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2013_05, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    13. Shuwen Li & Xiangdong Qin & Daniel Houser, 2018. "Revisiting gender differences in ultimatum bargaining: experimental evidence from the US and China," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 4(2), pages 180-190, December.
    14. Jaime Iranzo & Luis M Floría & Yamir Moreno & Angel Sánchez, 2012. "Empathy Emerges Spontaneously in the Ultimatum Game: Small Groups and Networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(9), pages 1-8, September.
    15. van Damme, Eric & Binmore, Kenneth G. & Roth, Alvin E. & Samuelson, Larry & Winter, Eyal & Bolton, Gary E. & Ockenfels, Axel & Dufwenberg, Martin & Kirchsteiger, Georg & Gneezy, Uri & Kocher, Martin G, 2014. "How Werner Güth's ultimatum game shaped our understanding of social behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 292-318.
    16. Muriel Niederle, 2014. "Gender," NBER Working Papers 20788, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Aina, Chiara & Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Gamba, Astrid, 2020. "Frustration and anger in the Ultimatum Game: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 150-167.
    18. Romina Boarini & Jean-François Laslier & Stéphane Robin, 2009. "Interpersonal comparisons of utility in bargaining: evidence from a transcontinental ultimatum game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 341-373, October.
    19. Jung, Seeun & Vranceanu, Radu, 2015. "Experimental Evidence on Gender Interaction in Lying Behavior," ESSEC Working Papers WP1514, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School, revised Oct 2015.
    20. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2008. "What's in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-35, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ratsoc:v:20:y:2008:i:2:p:173-201. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.