IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0043781.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Empathy Emerges Spontaneously in the Ultimatum Game: Small Groups and Networks

Author

Listed:
  • Jaime Iranzo
  • Luis M Floría
  • Yamir Moreno
  • Angel Sánchez

Abstract

The Ultimatum game, in which one subject proposes how to share a pot and the other has veto power on the proposal, in which case both lose everything, is a paradigmatic scenario to probe the degree of cooperation and altruism in human subjects. It has been shown that if individuals are empathic, i.e., they play the game having in mind how their opponent will react by offering an amount that they themselves would accept, then non-rational large offers well above the smallest possible ones are evolutionarily selected. We here show that empathy itself may be selected and need not be exogenously imposed provided that interactions take place only with a fraction of the total population, and that the role of proposer or responder is randomly changed from round to round. These empathic agents, that displace agents with independent (uncorrelated) offers and proposals, behave far from what is expected rationally, offering and accepting sizable fractions of the amount to be shared. Specific values for the typical offer depend on the details of the interacion network and on the existence of hubs, but they are almost always significantly larger than zero, indicating that the mechanism at work here is quite general and could explain the emergence of empathy in very many different contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0043781
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043781
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0043781
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0043781&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0043781?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. 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.
    2. Schlag, Karl H., 1998. "Why Imitate, and If So, How?, : A Boundedly Rational Approach to Multi-armed Bandits," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 130-156, January.
    3. Henrich, Joseph & Boyd, Robert & Bowles, Samuel & Camerer, Colin & Fehr, Ernst & Gintis, Herbert (ed.), 2004. "Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199262052.
    4. Helbing, Dirk, 1992. "Interrelations between stochastic equations for systems with pair interactions," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 181(1), pages 29-52.
    5. 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.
    6. Víctor M. Eguíluz & Claudio J. Tessone, 2009. "Critical Behavior In An Evolutionary Ultimatum Game With Social Structure," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 12(02), pages 221-232.
    7. 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.
    8. M. N. Kuperman & S. Risau-Gusman, 2008. "The effect of the topology on the spatial ultimatum game," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 62(2), pages 233-238, March.
    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. Akdeniz, Aslıhan & van Veelen, Matthijs, 2023. "Evolution and the ultimatum game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 570-612.
    2. Jia Li & Xiaolin Zhou, 2014. "Sex, Attractiveness, and Third-Party Punishment in Fairness Consideration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-6, April.
    3. Yanling Zhang & Jian Liu & Aming Li, 2019. "Effects of Empathy on the Evolutionary Dynamics of Fairness in Group-Structured Systems," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-13, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Antonio M. Espín & Filippos Exadaktylos & Benedikt Herrmann & Pablo Brañas-Garza, 2013. "Short- and Long-run Goals in Ultimatum Bargaining," Working Papers 13-17, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.

    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. 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.
    2. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    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. Feng Xie & David Levinson, 2009. "Governance choice on a serial network," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 141(1), pages 189-212, October.
    5. Simon Gaechter, 2014. "Human Pro-Social Motivation and the Maintenance of Social Order," Discussion Papers 2014-02, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    6. Thomas Webster, 2013. "A Note on the Ultimatum Paradox, Bounded Rationality, and Uncertainty," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 19(1), pages 1-10, February.
    7. Yen-Sheng Chiang, 2008. "A Path Toward Fairness," Rationality and Society, , vol. 20(2), pages 173-201, May.
    8. Perc, Matjaž & Grigolini, Paolo, 2013. "Collective behavior and evolutionary games – An introduction," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 1-5.
    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. 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.
    11. Ehmke, Mariah & Lusk, Jayson & Tyner, Wallace, 2010. "Multidimensional tests for economic behavior differences across cultures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-45, January.
    12. 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.
    13. Chesney, Thomas & Chuah, Swee-Hoon & Hoffmann, Robert, 2009. "Virtual world experimentation: An exploratory study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 618-635, October.
    14. Fabian Dvorak & Regina Stumpf & Sebastian Fehrler & Urs Fischbacher, 2024. "Generative AI Triggers Welfare-Reducing Decisions in Humans," Papers 2401.12773, arXiv.org.
    15. Antonio Cabrales & Giovanni Ponti, 2000. "Implementation, Elimination of Weakly Dominated Strategies and Evolutionary Dynamics," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 3(2), pages 247-282, April.
    16. Wang, Lu & Ye, Shun-qiang & Jones, Michael C. & Ye, Ye & Wang, Meng & Xie, Neng-gang, 2015. "The evolutionary analysis of the ultimatum game based on the net-profit decision," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 430(C), pages 32-38.
    17. John A. List, 2007. "On the Interpretation of Giving in Dictator Games," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(3), pages 482-493.
    18. 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.
    19. Larney, Andrea & Rotella, Amanda & Barclay, Pat, 2019. "Stake size effects in ultimatum game and dictator game offers: A meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 61-72.
    20. 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.

    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:pone00:0043781. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.