IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pcbi00/1014387.html

Evolution and the ultimatum game: An agent-based model with interbirth intervals and population structure

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey C Schank
  • Matt L Miller

Abstract

The ultimatum game (UG) is widely used to study mutually beneficial exchanges, fairness, and prosocial behavior across different societies. However, human behavior in UG experiments does not align with the game-theoretical prediction that proposers should offer the least positive amount and responders should accept such offers. Instead, proposers make generous offers that are greater than the minimum responders are willing to accept, resulting in generous offers with wide offer-acceptance gaps. Numerous evolutionary models of the UG have been created and studied to explain human behavior, particularly generous offers made in UG experiments. These models have recently faced criticism for lacking biological realism and not adequately explaining the data. Here, we present an agent-based model inspired by our hunter-gatherer ancestors and with a biologically more realistic selection process. We assume that (1) agents exist in group-structured and group-clustered populations, where reproduction (2) depends on resource accumulation, but (3) is limited by interbirth intervals. We ran simulations to assess whether this biologically more realistic model evolves patterns of behavior consistent with patterns in the data from meta-analyses of human behavior in the UG. For the proposed model, we show that generous offers robustly evolve, as well as the difficult-to-explain offer-acceptance gaps, only in group-structured populations with interbirth intervals. We demonstrate that these results are robust and may help explain variation in data across societies. We discuss how interbirth intervals interact with group structure to modulate offer and rejection costs, favoring the evolution of generous offers, offer-acceptance gaps, and other patterns in the data on human behavior in the UG. We also discuss why weak selection and/or high mutation rate models cannot explain all the patterns in UG experimental data. We discuss biological realism and conclude that group structure and interbirth intervals may be essential for explaining prosocial behavior across societies.Author summary: We used an agent-based model to investigate why people consistently make generous offers in the ultimatum game, contradicting classic game-theoretical predictions that proposers should offer the minimum possible and responders should accept any positive offer. Previous evolutionary models attempting to explain this generosity have been criticized for being biologically unrealistic. In response, our agent-based model reflects early human evolutionary conditions, incorporating group-structured populations, reproduction based on resource accumulation, and natural limitations on interbirth intervals (birth frequency). Our simulations show that generous offers and significant gaps between what is offered and what would be accepted evolve under these conditions, aligning with patterns found in real-world experimental data from different societies. Crucially, our model reveals that group structure and limits on the rate of reproduction interact to favor the evolution of generosity. We argue that these features are necessary for explaining cross-cultural variations in generosity, outperforming less realistic models relying only on weak selection or high mutation rates.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey C Schank & Matt L Miller, 2026. "Evolution and the ultimatum game: An agent-based model with interbirth intervals and population structure," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 22(6), pages 1-35, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pcbi00:1014387
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014387
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014387
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014387&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014387?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. Chen, Yunong & Belmonte, Andrew & Griffin, Christopher, 2021. "Imitation of success leads to cost of living mediated fairness in the Ultimatum Game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 583(C).
    2. Huck, Steffen & Oechssler, Jorg, 1999. "The Indirect Evolutionary Approach to Explaining Fair Allocations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 13-24, July.
    3. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Aleksanyan, L.H. & Allahverdyan, A.E. & Bardakhchyan, V.G., 2025. "Ultimatum game: Regret or fairness?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    2. Gagen, Michael, 2013. "Isomorphic Strategy Spaces in Game Theory," MPRA Paper 46176, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Damon Tomlin, 2015. "Rational Constraints and the Evolution of Fairness in the Ultimatum Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    4. Akdeniz, Aslıhan & van Veelen, Matthijs, 2023. "Evolution and the ultimatum game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 570-612.
    5. Chen, Yunong & Belmonte, Andrew & Griffin, Christopher, 2021. "Imitation of success leads to cost of living mediated fairness in the Ultimatum Game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 583(C).
    6. Robert Jiro Netzer & Matthias Sutter, 2009. "Intercultural trust. An experiment in Austria and Japan," Working Papers 2009-05, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    7. Ingela Alger & Jörgen W. Weibull, 2013. "Homo Moralis—Preference Evolution Under Incomplete Information and Assortative Matching," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(6), pages 2269-2302, November.
    8. Alger, Ingela & Weibull, Jörgen W., 2014. "Evolution leads to Kantian morality," TSE Working Papers 14-504, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Jun 2015.
    9. 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.
    10. Friedel Bolle & Jessica Kaehler, 2006. "Coleman's Hypothesis on trusting behaviour and a remark on meta-studies," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(4), pages 469-483.
    11. Finocchiaro Castro, Massimo, 2008. "Where are you from? Cultural differences in public good experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2319-2329, December.
    12. Fernando P Santos & Jorge M Pacheco & Ana Paiva & Francisco C Santos, 2017. "Structural power and the evolution of collective fairness in social networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-14, April.
    13. Dossè Mawussi Djahini‐Afawoubo, 2024. "Understanding tax payment behaviour in the West African Economic and Monetary Union: The role of perceived detection capacity and honesty," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(2), pages 795-823, March.
    14. 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.
    15. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    16. 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).
    17. Funk, Matt, 2008. "On the Problem of Sustainable Economic Development: A Theoretical Solution to this Prisoner's Dilemma," MPRA Paper 19025, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Jun 2008.
    18. Müller, Stephan, 2014. "The evolution of inequality aversion in a simplified game of life," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 219, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    19. Christian Korth, 2009. "Reciprocity—An Indirect Evolutionary Analysis," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Fairness in Bargaining and Markets, chapter 0, pages 35-55, Springer.
    20. Kai A. Konrad, 2004. "Altruism and envy in contests: An evolutionarily stable symbiosis," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 22(3), pages 479-490, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pcbi00:1014387. 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: ploscompbiol (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/ .

    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.