March 2013 (2)
December 2012 (1)
November 2012 (3)
September 2012 (2)
August 2012 (2)
October 2011 (1)
September 2011 (2)
August 2011 (1)
July 2011 (2)
June 2011 (1)
May 2011 (1)
April 2011 (4)
March 2011 (3)
February 2011 (2)
January 2011 (3)
December 2010 (3)
November 2010 (3)
October 2010 (1)
September 2010 (2)
August 2010 (1)
July 2010 (2)
June 2010 (2)
May 2010 (2)
April 2010 (2)
March 2010 (2)
February 2010 (5)
January 2010 (3)
December 2009 (4)
November 2009 (5)
September 2009 (2)
July 2009 (3)
June 2009 (1)
May 2009 (3)
April 2009 (6)
March 2009 (4)
February 2009 (2)
December 2008 (1)
November 2008 (4)
October 2008 (1)
September 2008 (1)
August 2008 (3)
July 2008 (4)
June 2008 (3)
April 2008 (3)
March 2008 (3)
February 2008 (2)
January 2008 (5)
December 2007 (1)
November 2007 (4)
October 2007 (6)
September 2007 (6)
August 2007 (6)
July 2007 (5)
June 2007 (2)
May 2007 (2)
April 2007 (6)
March 2007 (3)
February 2007 (3)
January 2007 (4)
December 2006 (3)
November 2006 (2)
September 2006 (1)
August 2006 (1)




agalmics (13)
art (24)
art wank (1)
bad science (9)
bollocks (4)
bullets (19)
comics (17)
computers ate my brain (11)
criminal justice (12)
culture (73)
cycle24 (3)
digital rights (7)
eschatology (3)
evolution (11)
fatherhood (14)
film (15)
flash (7)
fotb (3)
fragments (2)
games (5)
generative art (48)
generative art book (12)
interactive (3)
introspection (20)
literature (20)
modern romance (1)
music (17)
old media (7)
open source (15)
philosophy (67)
readers wives (1)
retro (10)
society (33)
tech (55)
universal automatism (8)
video (28)
web (24)
work (32)
writing (7)
wtf (9)
zen (13)





The Ultimatum Game

February 14th, 2007

Great news – Society exists! We’re not just self-serving individuals with no sense of collective responsibility, the Ultimatum Game proves it.

The Ultimatum Game is a very simple social economic experiment. A group is divided into pairs, one player is given £10 and told to share it with their partner with a one-time offer. They can share as much or as little as they like, but if their partner refuses the offer both leave with nothing. After many transactions the group then has an average figure of successful, i.e. accepted, transactions.

Obviously, if self interest we’re the only motivating factor in a decision like this, the offer would always be as little as possible – £1. But this is not the case as offers of £1 are almost always rejected. More typically the offer is £5, i.e. a 50/50 split, and the average is around 40%. This is because the decision maker knows that if they were in the recipient’s position, they would be inclined to reject the offer if they considered it greedy.

The psychological principle this is proving is that people are prepared to sacrifice their own gain to punish another’s greed, which is, in the most abstract form, a sense of social responsibility.

Also, in an interesting extention of the experiment, if the allocation of giver and receiver is not decided randomly, but instead the person offering “earns’ their position from outperforming the other in a simple test, the average offer accepted is generally much lower. This indicates that most people will not only punish greed, but also reward achievement, and are prepared to make sacrifices to do it.

Interestingly, perhaps predictably, this second version of the test varies culturally, with the average accepted offer being at it’s lowest in America, where capitalism is at it’s most rampant and people actually believe in the “American Dream’ that success can be down to achievement alone. Older societies like Britain or Russia, who have the inequality of privilege much deeper ingrained, are less forgiving towards the greedy offers.

tags:



Leave a Reply