IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0193877.html

Preference and strategy in proposer’s prosocial giving in the ultimatum game

Author

Listed:
  • Misato Inaba
  • Yumi Inoue
  • Satoshi Akutsu
  • Nobuyuki Takahashi
  • Toshio Yamagishi

Abstract

The accumulation of findings that most responders in the ultimatum game reject unfair offers provides evidence that humans are driven by social preferences such as preferences for fairness and prosociality. On the other hand, if and how the proposer’s behavior is affected by social preferences remains unelucidated. We addressed this question for the first time by manipulating the knowledge that the proposer had about the responder’s belief concerning the intentionality of the proposer. In a new game called the “ultimatum game with ambiguous intentions of the proposer (UGAMB),” we made the intentionality of the proposer ambiguous to the recipient. We expected and found that the proposer would make more unfair offers in this new game than in the standard ultimatum game. This expectation can be derived from either the preference-based model or the strategy model of the proposer’s giving decision. The additional finding that more unfair giving in the UGAMB was not mediated by the proposer’s expectation that the recipient would be more willing to accept unfair offers provided support for the preference-based model. Using a psychological measure of cognitive control, the preference-based model received additional support through a conceptual replication of the previous finding that cognitive control of intuitive drive for prosociality in the dictator game, rather than mind reading in the ultimatum game, is responsible for the difference in giving between the two games.

Suggested Citation

  • Misato Inaba & Yumi Inoue & Satoshi Akutsu & Nobuyuki Takahashi & Toshio Yamagishi, 2018. "Preference and strategy in proposer’s prosocial giving in the ultimatum game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-15, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0193877
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193877
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193877
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193877&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0193877?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. Gueth, W. & van Damme, E.E.C., 1994. "Information, strategic behavior and fairness in ultimatum bargaining : An experimental study," Other publications TiSEM 84951aae-31ab-46fc-85f5-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Herbert Gintis, 2000. "Strong Reciprocity and Human Sociality," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2000-02, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    3. Bellemare, Charles & Kröger, Sabine & van Soest, Arthur, 2011. "Preferences, intentions, and expectation violations: A large-scale experiment with a representative subject pool," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 349-365, May.
    4. David G. Rand & Joshua D. Greene & Martin A. Nowak, 2012. "Spontaneous giving and calculated greed," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7416), pages 427-430, September.
    5. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    6. Dustin P. Calvillo & Jessica N. Burgeno, 2015. "Cognitive reflection predicts the acceptance of unfair ultimatum game offers," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 10(4), pages 332-341, July.
    7. Blount, Sally, 1995. "When Social Outcomes Aren't Fair: The Effect of Causal Attributions on Preferences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 131-144, August.
    8. Falk, Armin & Fehr, Ernst & Fischbacher, Urs, 2008. "Testing theories of fairness--Intentions matter," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 287-303, January.
    9. Haruto Takagishi & Michiko Koizumi & Takayuki Fujii & Joanna Schug & Shinya Kameshima & Toshio Yamagishi, 2014. "The Role of Cognitive and Emotional Perspective Taking in Economic Decision Making in the Ultimatum Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-7, September.
    10. Shane Frederick, 2005. "Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 25-42, Fall.
    11. Falk, Armin & Fischbacher, Urs, 2006. "A theory of reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 293-315, February.
    12. Sutter, Matthias, 2007. "Outcomes versus intentions: On the nature of fair behavior and its development with age," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 69-78, January.
    13. Wim De Neys & Nikolay Novitskiy & Leen Geeraerts & Jennifer Ramautar & Johan Wagemans, 2011. "Cognitive Control and Individual Differences in Economic Ultimatum Decision-Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(11), pages 1-9, November.
    14. David G. Rand & Alexander Peysakhovich & Gordon T. Kraft-Todd & George E. Newman & Owen Wurzbacher & Martin A. Nowak & Joshua D. Greene, 2014. "Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 5(1), pages 1-12, 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. Akdeniz, Aslıhan & van Veelen, Matthijs, 2023. "Evolution and the ultimatum game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 570-612.
    2. Yoan Hermstrüwer & Pascal Langenbach, 2022. "Fair Governance with Humans and Machines," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2022_04, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics, revised 01 Mar 2023.
    3. Slosse, Wannes & Mutuku, Kennedy Vaati & de Clercq, Michaël & D’Haese, Marijke & Schoors, Koen & Buysse, Jeroen, 2025. "Uncertainty and inequality preferences in the Ultimatum Game: A case study on Kenyan smallholder farmers," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    4. Ogawa, Kazuhito & Kawamura, Tetsuya & Matsushita, Keiichiro, 2020. "Effects of cognitive ability and age on giving in dictator game experiments," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(4), pages 323-335.
    5. Markus Seier, 2020. "The Intuition of Punishment: A Study of Fairness Preferences and Cognitive Ability," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-25, May.
    6. Gorny, Paul M. & Groos, Eva & Strobel, Christina, 2024. "Do Personalized AI Predictions Change Subsequent Decision-Outcomes? The Impact of Human Oversight," MPRA Paper 121065, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 2005. "The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism – Experimental Evidence and New Theories," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 66, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    2. Stanca, Luca, 2010. "How to be kind? Outcomes versus intentions as determinants of fairness," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 19-21, January.
    3. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, "undated". "Theories of Fairness and Reciprocity - Evidence and Economic Applications," IEW - Working Papers 075, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    4. Brownback, Andy & Kuhn, Michael A., 2019. "Understanding outcome bias," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 342-360.
    5. Kamas, Linda & Preston, Anne, 2012. "Distributive and reciprocal fairness: What can we learn from the heterogeneity of social preferences?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 538-553.
    6. Trautmann, Stefan T., 2009. "A tractable model of process fairness under risk," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 803-813, October.
    7. Fadong Chen & Urs Fischbacher, 2020. "Cognitive processes underlying distributional preferences: a response time study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 421-446, June.
    8. Brice Corgnet & Antonio M. Espin & Roberto Hernán-González, 2015. "The cognitive basis of social behavior : cognitive reflection overrides antisocial but not always prosocial motives," Post-Print hal-02311954, HAL.
    9. Fiery Cushman & Anna Dreber & Ying Wang & Jay Costa, 2009. "Accidental Outcomes Guide Punishment in a “Trembling Hand” Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(8), pages 1-7, August.
    10. Orhun, A. Yeşim, 2018. "Perceived motives and reciprocity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 436-451.
    11. Christoph Engel & Paul A. M. Van Lange, 2021. "Social mindfulness is normative when costs are low, but rapidly declines with increases in costs," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 16(2), pages 290-322, March.
    12. Daniel Woods & Maroš Servátka, 2019. "Nice to you, nicer to me: Does self-serving generosity diminish the reciprocal response?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 506-529, June.
    13. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Dufwenberg, Martin & Smith, Alec, 2019. "Frustration, aggression, and anger in leader-follower games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 15-39.
    14. Casal, Sandro & Fallucchi, Francesco & Quercia, Simone, 2019. "The role of morals in three-player ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 67-79.
    15. Diaz, Lina & Houser, Daniel & Ifcher, John & Zarghamee, Homa, 2023. "Estimating social preferences using stated satisfaction: Novel support for inequity aversion," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    16. Schubert, Manuel & Graf Lambsdorff, Johann, 2012. "On the costs of kindness: An experimental investigation of guilty minds and negative reciprocity," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Volkswirtschaftliche Reihe V-64-12, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    17. Rebekka Kesberg & Stefan Pfattheicher, 2019. "Democracy matters: a psychological perspective on the beneficial impact of democratic punishment systems in social dilemmas," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    18. Strassmair, Christina, 2009. "Can intentions spoil the kindness of a gift? - An experimental study," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 302, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    19. Roman M. Sheremeta, 2016. "Impulsive Behavior in Competition: Testing Theories of Overbidding in Rent-Seeking Contests," Working Papers 16-21, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    20. Stanca, Luca & Bruni, Luigino & Corazzini, Luca, 2009. "Testing theories of reciprocity: Do motivations matter?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 233-245, August.

    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:pone00:0193877. 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.