IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0196524.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategy intervention for the evolution of fairness

Author

Listed:
  • Yanling Zhang
  • Feng Fu

Abstract

The ‘irrational’ preference for fairness has attracted increasing attention. Although previous studies have focused on the effects of spitefulness on the evolution of fairness, they did not consider non-monotonic rejections shown in behavioral experiments. In this paper, we introduce a non-monotonic rejection in an evolutionary model of the Ultimatum Game. We propose strategy intervention to study the evolution of fairness in general structured populations. By sequentially adding five strategies into the competition between a fair strategy and a selfish strategy, we arrive at the following conclusions. First, the evolution of fairness is inhibited by altruism, but it is promoted by spitefulness. Second, the non-monotonic rejection helps fairness overcome selfishness. Particularly for group-structured populations, we analytically investigate how fairness, selfishness, altruism, and spitefulness are affected by population size, mutation, and migration in the competition among seven strategies. Our results may provide important insights into understanding the evolutionary origin of fairness.

Suggested Citation

  • Yanling Zhang & Feng Fu, 2018. "Strategy intervention for the evolution of fairness," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0196524
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196524
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196524
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196524&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0196524?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. 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. 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.
    3. Chris T Bauch & Samit Bhattacharyya, 2012. "Evolutionary Game Theory and Social Learning Can Determine How Vaccine Scares Unfold," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-12, April.
    4. Zhang, Yanling & Chen, Xiaojie & Liu, Aizhi & Sun, Changyin, 2018. "The effect of the stake size on the evolution of fairness," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 321(C), pages 641-653.
    5. Thaler, Richard H, 1988. "The Ultimatum Game," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 195-206, Fall.
    6. Christopher T. Dawes & James H. Fowler & Tim Johnson & Richard McElreath & Oleg Smirnov, 2007. "Egalitarian motives in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 446(7137), pages 794-796, April.
    7. Chris T. Bauch & Richard McElreath, 2016. "Disease dynamics and costly punishment can foster socially imposed monogamy," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-9, September.
    8. Staffiero, Gianandrea & Exadaktylos, Filippos & Espín, Antonio M., 2013. "Accepting zero in the ultimatum game does not reflect selfish preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 236-238.
    9. Bahry, Donna L. & Wilson, Rick K., 2006. "Confusion or fairness in the field? Rejections in the ultimatum game under the strategy method," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 37-54, May.
    10. David G. Rand & Martin A. Nowak, 2011. "The evolution of antisocial punishment in optional public goods games," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 2(1), pages 1-7, September.
    11. Pablo Branas-Garza & Antonio M. Espin & Benedikt Herrmann, 2014. "Fair and unfair punishers coexist in the Ultimatum Game," SEET Working Papers 2014-02, BELIS, Istanbul Bilgi University.
    12. Gabriel E. Leventhal & Alison L. Hill & Martin A. Nowak & Sebastian Bonhoeffer, 2015. "Evolution and emergence of infectious diseases in theoretical and real-world networks," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, May.
    13. Huck, Steffen, 1999. "Responder behavior in ultimatum offer games with incomplete information," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 183-206, April.
    14. Valerio Capraro, 2013. "A Model of Human Cooperation in Social Dilemmas," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-6, August.
    15. Wang, Qiang & He, Nanrong & Chen, Xiaojie, 2018. "Replicator dynamics for public goods game with resource allocation in large populations," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 328(C), pages 162-170.
    16. Valerio Capraro & Hélène Barcelo, 2015. "Group Size Effect on Cooperation in One-Shot Social Dilemmas II: Curvilinear Effect," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-11, July.
    17. Yang, Han-Xin & Chen, Xiaojie, 2018. "Promoting cooperation by punishing minority," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 316(C), pages 460-466.
    18. Boyu Zhang, 2013. "Social Learning in the Ultimatum Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-6, September.
    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. Tian, Xiaoyong & Li, Kun & Kang, Zengxin & Peng, Yun & Cui, Hongjun, 2020. "Simulating the dynamical features of evacuation governed by periodic vibrations," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    2. Zhao, Yakun & Xiong, Tianyu & Zheng, Lei & Li, Yumeng & Chen, Xiaojie, 2020. "The effect of similarity on the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    3. Du, Jinming, 2019. "Redistribution promotes cooperation in spatial public goods games under aspiration dynamics," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 363(C), pages 1-1.
    4. 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.
    5. Zhang, Yanling & Yang, Shuo & Chen, Xiaojie & Bai, Yanbing & Xie, Guangming, 2023. "Reputation update of responders efficiently promotes the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    6. Chen, Wei & Zhu, Qianlong & Wu, Te, 2023. "Unfairness promotes the evolution of cooperation," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 438(C).
    7. Xiaofeng Wang & Xiaojie Chen & Long Wang, 2020. "Evolution of egalitarian social norm by resource management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, January.
    8. Li, Kun & Mao, Yizhou & Wei, Zhenlin & Cong, Rui, 2021. "Pool-rewarding in N-person snowdrift game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    9. Kang, Zengxin & Zhang, Lei & Li, Kun, 2019. "An improved social force model for pedestrian dynamics in shipwrecks," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 348(C), pages 355-362.

    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. Shanshan Zhen & Rongjun Yu, 2016. "Tend to Compare and Tend to Be Fair: The Relationship between Social Comparison Sensitivity and Justice Sensitivity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, May.
    2. Zheng, Lei & Li, Youqi & Zhou, Jingsai & Li, Yumeng, 2022. "The effect of celebrity on the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 585(C).
    3. Brice Corgnet & Antonio M. Espín & Roberto Hernán-González, 2015. "The cognitive basis of social behavior: cognitive reflection overrides antisocial but not always prosocial motives," Working Papers 15-04, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    4. Declerck, Carolyn H. & Kiyonari, Toko & Boone, Christophe, 2009. "Why do responders reject unequal offers in the Ultimatum Game? An experimental study on the role of perceiving interdependence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 335-343, June.
    5. Xiaofeng Wang & Xiaojie Chen & Long Wang, 2020. "Evolution of egalitarian social norm by resource management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, January.
    6. Yang, Kai & Huang, Changwei & Dai, Qionglin & Yang, Junzhong, 2018. "The effects of attribute persistence on cooperation in evolutionary games," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 23-28.
    7. Li, Yumeng & Wang, Hanchen & Du, Wenbo & Perc, Matjaž & Cao, Xianbin & Zhang, Jun, 2019. "Resonance-like cooperation due to transaction costs in the prisoner’s dilemma game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 521(C), pages 248-257.
    8. Song, Fanpeng & Wu, Jianliang & Fan, Suohai & Jing, Fei, 2020. "Transcendental behavior and disturbance behavior favor human development," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 378(C).
    9. Chen, Qiao & Chen, Tong & Wang, Yongjie, 2019. "Cleverly handling the donation information can promote cooperation in public goods game," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 346(C), pages 363-373.
    10. Zultan, Ro’i, 2012. "Strategic and social pre-play communication in the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 425-434.
    11. Yu, Xiaohui & He, Mingke & Sun, Hongxia & Zhou, Zhen, 2020. "Uncertain coalition structure game with payoff of belief structure," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 372(C).
    12. Li, Bin-Quan & Wu, Zhi-Xi & Guan, Jian-Yue, 2022. "Critical thresholds of benefit distribution in an extended snowdrift game model," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    13. Zhao, Yakun & Xiong, Tianyu & Zheng, Lei & Li, Yumeng & Chen, Xiaojie, 2020. "The effect of similarity on the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    14. Kang, Zengxin & Zhang, Lei & Li, Kun, 2019. "An improved social force model for pedestrian dynamics in shipwrecks," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 348(C), pages 355-362.
    15. Liu, Danna & Huang, Changwei & Dai, Qionglin & Li, Haihong, 2019. "Positive correlation between strategy persistence and teaching ability promotes cooperation in evolutionary Prisoner’s Dilemma games," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 520(C), pages 267-274.
    16. He, Nanrong & Chen, Xiaojie & Szolnoki, Attila, 2019. "Central governance based on monitoring and reporting solves the collective-risk social dilemma," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 347(C), pages 334-341.
    17. Tian, Xiaoyong & Li, Kun & Kang, Zengxin & Peng, Yun & Cui, Hongjun, 2020. "Simulating the dynamical features of evacuation governed by periodic vibrations," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    18. Liu, Run-Ran & Jia, Chun-Xiao & Rong, Zhihai, 2019. "Effects of enhancement level on evolutionary public goods game with payoff aspirations," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 350(C), pages 242-248.
    19. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Espín, Antonio M. & Lenkei, Balint, 2015. "BMI is not related to altruism, fairness, trust or reciprocity: Experimental evidence from the field and the lab," MPRA Paper 68184, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Deka, Aniruddha & Bhattacharyya, Samit, 2022. "The effect of human vaccination behaviour on strain competition in an infectious disease: An imitation dynamic approach," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 62-76.

    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:pone00:0196524. 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.