IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v15y2009i2d10.1007_s10588-008-9053-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strong reciprocity, social structure, and the evolution of fair allocations in a simulated ultimatum game

Author

Listed:
  • Shade T. Shutters

    (Arizona State University)

Abstract

Cooperation has long been an enigma in the life and social sciences. A possible explanation for the phenomenon is the recently developed idea of strong reciprocity in which agents altruistically reward those that cooperate and altruistically punish those that do not. The acts are altruistic in the sense that when agents punish or reward they incur a cost but receive no material benefit. Both experimentalists and modelers have focused primarily on third-party altruistic punishment mechanisms yet rarely discuss how they establish a cost for punishing. In this study I used agent-based modelling to test the ability of altruistic punishment to elicit fair allocations in a simulated ultimatum game. In particular I simulated agents with the ability to punish neighbors whose offers were deemed too low while systematically varying the ratio of costs between punisher and punishee. Despite several studies in which strong reciprocity is shown to induce cooperation, altruistic punishment failed to evolve fair allocations in these simulations. However, outcomes were highly dependant on the spatial structure of agents in the simulations and fair allocations did evolve in a linearly structured population even in the absence of punishment. As the number of immediate neighbors increased, mean offers fell but still remained significantly greater than that predicted by standard economic theory. Only when social structure was removed, and agents could interact with any other agent in the population, did offers in the simulated ultimatum game match theoretical expectations.

Suggested Citation

  • Shade T. Shutters, 2009. "Strong reciprocity, social structure, and the evolution of fair allocations in a simulated ultimatum game," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 64-77, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:15:y:2009:i:2:d:10.1007_s10588-008-9053-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10588-008-9053-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10588-008-9053-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10588-008-9053-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, "undated". "Third Party Punishment and Social Norms," IEW - Working Papers 106, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    2. K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), 2005. "Handbook of Environmental Economics," Handbook of Environmental Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    3. Herbert Gintis, 2000. "Strong Reciprocity and Human Sociality," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2000-02, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    4. Ostrom, Elinor & Walker, James & Gardner, Roy, 1992. "Covenants with and without a Sword: Self-Governance Is Possible," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(2), pages 404-417, June.
    5. Ernst Fehr & Bettina Rockenbach, 2003. "Detrimental effects of sanctions on human altruism," Nature, Nature, vol. 422(6928), pages 137-140, March.
    6. David Masclet & Charles Noussair & Steven Tucker & Marie-Claire Villeval, 2003. "Monetary and Nonmonetary Punishment in the Voluntary Contributions Mechanism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 366-380, March.
    7. Ulrich J. Wagner, 2001. "The Design of Stable International Environmental Agreements: Economic Theory and Political Economy," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 377-411, July.
    8. Marco Casari, 2005. "On the Design of Peer Punishment Experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 8(2), pages 107-115, June.
    9. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gächter, 2002. "Altruistic punishment in humans," Nature, Nature, vol. 415(6868), pages 137-140, January.
    10. Simon Gachter & Ernst Fehr, 2000. "Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 980-994, September.
    11. Roth, Alvin E. & Vesna Prasnikar & Masahiro Okuno-Fujiwara & Shmuel Zamir, 1991. "Bargaining and Market Behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1068-1095, December.
    12. Barrett, Scott, 2005. "The theory of international environmental agreements," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 28, pages 1457-1516, Elsevier.
    13. James Andreoni & William Harbaugh & Lise Vesterlund, 2003. "The Carrot or the Stick: Rewards, Punishments, and Cooperation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 893-902, June.
    14. Rick L. Riolo & Michael D. Cohen & Robert Axelrod, 2001. "Evolution of cooperation without reciprocity," Nature, Nature, vol. 414(6862), pages 441-443, November.
    15. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity by image scoring," Nature, Nature, vol. 393(6685), pages 573-577, June.
    16. M.A. Nowak & K. Sigmund, 1998. "Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by Image Scoring/ The Dynamics of Indirect Reciprocity," Working Papers ir98040, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    17. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2003. "The nature of human altruism," Nature, Nature, vol. 425(6960), pages 785-791, October.
    18. Martin A. Nowak & Karl Sigmund, 2005. "Evolution of indirect reciprocity," Nature, Nature, vol. 437(7063), pages 1291-1298, October.
    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. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2004. "Social norms and human cooperation," Macroeconomics 0409026, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Wolff, Irenaeus, 2009. "Counterpunishment revisited: an evolutionary approach," MPRA Paper 16923, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Isamu Okada, 2020. "A Review of Theoretical Studies on Indirect Reciprocity," Games, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-17, July.
    4. Egas, Martijn & Riedl, Arno, 2005. "The Economics of Altruistic Punishment and the Demise of Cooperation," IZA Discussion Papers 1646, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Simon Gaechter & Benedikt Herrmann, 2008. "Reciprocity, culture, and human cooperation: Previous insights and a new cross-cultural experiment," Discussion Papers 2008-14, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    6. Yu, Tongkui & Chen, Shu-Heng & Li, Honggang, 2011. "Social Norm, Costly Punishment and the Evolution to Cooperation," MPRA Paper 28814, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Simon Gaechter & Benedikt Herrmann, 2008. "Reciprocity, culture, and human cooperation: Previous insights and a new cross-cultural experiment," Discussion Papers 2008-14, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    8. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    9. Giangiacomo Bravo & Lucia Tamburino, 2008. "The Evolution of Trust in Non-Simultaneous Exchange Situations," Rationality and Society, , vol. 20(1), pages 85-113, February.
    10. Podobnik, Boris & Gabor, Andrijana Musura & Kirbis, Ivona Skreblin, 2019. "Scale-free growth of human society based on cooperation and altruistic punishment," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 513(C), pages 613-619.
    11. Fehr, Ernst & Henrich, Joseph, 2003. "Is Strong Reciprocity a Maladaptation? On the Evolutionary Foundations of Human Altruism," IZA Discussion Papers 712, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. D. Darcet & D. Sornette, 2008. "Quantitative determination of the level of cooperation in the presence of punishment in three public good experiments," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 3(2), pages 137-163, December.
    13. Xiao, Erte, 2013. "Profit-seeking punishment corrupts norm obedience," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 321-344.
    14. Herbert Gintis, 2003. "Solving the Puzzle of Prosociality," Rationality and Society, , vol. 15(2), pages 155-187, May.
    15. Wang, Xianjia & Ding, Rui & Zhao, Jinhua & Chen, Wenman & Gu, Cuiling, 2022. "Competition of punishment and reward among inequity-averse individuals in spatial public goods games," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    16. Bin Xu & Bram Cadsby & Liangcong Fan & Fei Song, 2011. "Group Size, Coordination, and the Effectiveness of the Punishment Mechanism in the VCM: An Experimental Investigation," Working Papers 1110, University of Guelph, Department of Economics and Finance.
    17. Johnson, Dominic D.P. & Price, Michael E. & Van Vugt, Mark, 2013. "Darwin's invisible hand: Market competition, evolution and the firm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(S), pages 128-140.
    18. Bin Xu & C. Bram Cadsby & Liangcong Fan & Fei Song, 2013. "Group Size, Coordination, and the Effectiveness of Punishment in the Voluntary Contributions Mechanism: An Experimental Investigation," Games, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-17, February.
    19. Nuria Osés-Eraso & Montserrat Viladrich-Grau, 2011. "The sustainability of the commons: giving and receiving," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 458-481, November.
    20. Giangiacomo Bravo & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2013. "Exit, Punishment and Rewards in Commons Dilemmas: An Experimental Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-9, August.

    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:spr:comaot:v:15:y:2009:i:2:d:10.1007_s10588-008-9053-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.