In an Ultimatum Game, how much money would you accept?

[NiiTe]

The Ultimatum game is an activity in which one person proposes a way to split an amount of money, say 100$, between two people. Once they propose a split, the other person chooses either to accept the offer or reject it. If they reject the offer than both people receive nothing.
If you were the second person, what do you think would be the minimum amount of money that you would accept?

[force my hand]

Tricky question, reminds me of Dawkin's The Selfish Gene.

I would probably settle on an arbitrary 30%/'critical mass' figure. I'm not into punishing mildly-selfish people, so I'd accept a 60/40 split... it's not completely unreasonable because living in society requires compromise. But 75/25? Probably not - now you're just taking advantage of me, and the $25 would be well worth your punishment.

[aestrivex]

i would accept no less than $97.34

[force my hand]

Oh, niffweed...

[JRiddy]

I have a job, so I wouldn't accept anything less than 100% just to spite the other person.

[FDG]

0.01 dollars

[snegledmaca]

Depends solely on the circumstances. If I don't need the money I would take anything they offer, as in my mind the money is not my possession so I cannot make a claim on it. If I need the money I would only take 50% or more, as now I am making a claim on the money and as such I would not accept an unfair treatment, that is, if the other person tried to give me an unfavorable position I would want to make them pay for it and would rather get nothing then let them get away with it. However, this is under the assumption that there are no other special circumstances, like that the other person needs the money more then me or some such thing. In those circumstances I would tend to be altruistic and would try to help them out to the best of my abilities.

[FDG]

Given that the game is structured in a non-repeating a memory-absent fashion, then I don't see why people are saying that they would accept no less than 40 dollars. Given that you don't have to tell the other party which is the minimal sum you're willing to accept, any sum above 0,00 will do the trick. Of course the situation would be very different if the game was repeated.

[munenori2]

On the whole, money doesn't mean much to me, even when I've not got much. $40 sounds about reasonable, perhaps a little less if they seemed somewhat nice and needy. If they were an ass about the whole deal, I might spite them regardless of the offer. Not that logical, but maybe that's my Fi talking.

[Outside]

Ohh, I saw the same experiment being performed on children in an documentary that I once saw...

The deal/experiment was that... between two children, one was offered 10 chocolate coins to split betweens the two. The same rule applies, one can either accept or reject the offer, and if he/she rejects, then they both get nothing.

And it showed that if one of the kid received what he/she perceived to be less than fair, then he/she would reject the offer, even though he/she gets none as a result.

They said that it was an evolutionary trait that one will "punish" the offender that he/she deemed as being unfair...

[Not A Communist Shill]

Given that the game is structured in a non-repeating a memory-absent fashion, then I don't see why people are saying that they would accept no less than 40 dollars. Given that you don't have to tell the other party which is the minimal sum you're willing to accept, any sum above 0,00 will do the trick. Of course the situation would be very different if the game was repeated.

Exactly . Just look like the sort of person who would refuse an offer of less than $40, so they don't offer you nothing.

If there was an indeterminate number of rounds, and I wanted to win, I would offer $30 the first time round, and see how they respond. If they reject the offer, or offer me the same amount in the second round, I would have to offer them $50 in the third round, I guess. And if they deviate from that, I will punish them in subsequent rounds. So the best strategy is probably to agree with the other person at the start to go 50:50 for each round.

If there is a prize to win, then the best strategy would be to agree with the other person to got 100:0 each and every round, so that one person wins, and then split the cash later.

Or if you are teh strategist, you keep all the money gained throughout, as well as the prize.

Or if you are teh ultimate strategist, you would do this, and then steal everybody else's money when noone was looking.

[Kristiina]

I'd be like, "50-50 and if you don't agree, you're a moron - either too full of yourself or devaluing yourself."

[Mariano Rajoy]

I would reject any offer less than $51 because offering anything over $50 is a sign of good will; I would prefer to trust my business partners. Try to take advantage and be a prick, then I use what leverage I have to return the favor.

[UDP]

The Ultimatum game is an activity in which one person proposes a way to split an amount of money, say 100$, between two people. Once they propose a split, the other person chooses either to accept the offer or reject it. If they reject the offer than both people receive nothing.
If you were the second person, what do you think would be the minimum amount of money that you would accept?

General Discussion?

anything goes

[BLauritson]

I'd personally expect an offer of $50 in such a situation, since that would always be my offer. As for what I'd accept.. I dunno really. I mean, even if they do end up taking a majority, you'd still get some of the money if you accepted it. Unless the offer you received was so small that it made no difference to you whatsoever, it strikes me as almost being a bit childish if you're essentially saying "I'd rather having nothing than have a small amount of money". I mean, OK, fair enough, the other person will be walking away with more, but if you weren't losing any money to start with.. I dunno, perhaps there's more to this than I've considered. Not something I give a great deal of consideration to anyway.

[Creepy-bg]

anything they offer is more than I had before hand so I don't get the people who say "a certain percent or they can go fuck themselves". Seems to me that they're screwing themselves over just for spite.

[force my hand]

Unless the offer you received was so small that it made no difference to you whatsoever, it strikes me as almost being a bit childish if you're essentially saying "I'd rather having nothing than have a small amount of money". I mean, OK, fair enough, the other person will be walking away with more, but if you weren't losing any money to start with.. I dunno, perhaps there's more to this than I've considered. Not something I give a great deal of consideration to anyway.

This was kind of where my thinking was going. Even if you were offered one cent, you still come out ahead so it's in your interest to accept it. But this is a symbolic interaction, based on the idea of cooperation. So I think it boils down to finding some threshold where what you forfeit is worth the other party's punishment.

FDG made a point about this being only one iteration, but I think the true relevency of this scenario is with respect to real life and how it would be a repeat process. For example, if you have a friend that takes and never gives back, chances are you're not going to be friends for very long.

[BLauritson]

Makes sense. I was just looking at the scenario on its own, but I see your point. I think in terms of this being a more symbolic interaction as you described it, my cut-off point would be somewhere between 60-40 and 70-30. While 50-50 would be ideal, which I imagine it would be for many, as long as it's relatively near to it then I would be content.

[Joy]

50/50. (I don't need to take away from others in order to have all that I want/need.)

[FDG]

This was kind of where my thinking was going. Even if you were offered one cent, you still come out ahead so it's in your interest to accept it. But this is a symbolic interaction, based on the idea of cooperation. So I think it boils down to finding some threshold where what you forfeit is worth the other party's punishment.

FDG made a point about this being only one iteration, but I think the true relevency of this scenario is with respect to real life and how it would be a repeat process. For example, if you have a friend that takes and never gives back, chances are you're not going to be friends for very long.

Yeah I agree that in a social scenario where the game is repeated my strategy would be different.

[NiiTe]

Ok, now suppose the game was repeated. And that maybe instead of money being split, this game is to model certain social situations. The person that makes the offer has an incentive to offer you as little as they can get away with, and you are stuck with the decision between accepting an unfair offer and getting something, or refusing the offer and getting nothing at all, except a sense of fairness. Examples could be:
1) Suppose you like music and want to play it and start a band. You have a friend that wants to jam with you. However this friend never want to do anything serious, because they are already in a band. So, when you jam you end up just fucking around and not doing anything productive, such that you are not satisfied with the way this situation is turning out. Assume this takes place in a suburban community where it is difficult to meet other people, which eliminates the ideal option of finding a more commited person to play music with.
2) Suppose you are in a band, but after a while you notice that you have little say in the creative direction of the music that this band plays. Suppose you enjoy playing music anyways, but you are always unsatisfied because you have little say in the creative direction of the music. Again, this takes place in a suburban community so you have difficulty in finding another band but also if you left your current band the would also have a difficult time replacing you.

In these situation, sure, cooperating is better than nothing because you still get something out of the deal, but you are still left with a sour sense of unfairness.

Can anyone think of any other possible social situations this game could model(or approximately model)? Another thing that comes to mind is the "nice guys finish last" perspective.

Also, I've noticed that the more people you have access to, the less problems like this would arise. So, I got away from the suburbs as soon as I could.

[Creepy-bg]

Can anyone think of any other possible social situations this game could model(or approximately model)?

sex?

[marooned]

The other person needs to think I won't settle for anything less than $50.

In reality I might settle for less... but if I was going to be playing this game more and what I settled for would affect people's impressions/thoughts about how much I would settle for, then that makes it tricky.

So it really all depends.

[cracka]

There's no way I wouldn't expect a 50/50 split. If I didn't get it I'd take whatever I was given anyway but it would be filed in my memory as, "this person doesn't mind fucking me over" and later in life or even not that far off... I'd have no problem telling that person to go fuck themselves and cut off any contact with them or they'd just be a typical "acquaintance" that I may say hi to some times but not really anything more.

I'm not one to keep people that would stab me in the back anywhere around me, it doesn't make sense to me really. It's funny how something so trivial could evolve in my mind to this extent but if you think about it, if you have a good relationship with someone, why would that person not offer you a 50/50 split? If I were offered less, then I may later find out a reason that they needed the money much more than I would... and that would be fine, but I wouldn't like it if they just gave me the short end of the stick, just cuz they're greedy.

I think this could be a type of example of this... to some small extent.

Fairness is something I deal with in my typical workday quite a bit. For instance, our break schedules. In a typical 12 hour workday we sometimes may take two 2 hour breaks. They are usually sceduled from 10-12 and 3-5 for whomever is on early break. And 12-2 and 5-7 for whomever is on late.
The first breaks have a built in buffer if for some reason a person has something going on... there's that hour in there that you can split up if you need to... but the last couple breaks, the 3-7 window has no real margin for screwing it up. Since we have to all be back in at 7pm until the end of our shift. So, if you go to break with someone and they come back 10 minutes later than they should every break, the first break doesn't matter much, but in the case of that second break... that person comes back 10 minutes late and you have to take another 10 minutes off your break because you are required to be back in at 7pm. Some people have had days where they "had something going on" and came back at 5:30, giving them a 2.5 hour break... and the other person left with a 1.5 hour break. Now, it's easy to see how this could be called unfair, but it does happen, and some people have no problem doing it on a regular basis. In my case, I'll bring it up to that person if I was the one getting fucked over in the first place... and then I'd probably take an extra amount of time the next day... to "keep things fair." now, don't get me wrong, sometimes I'll page the person and tell them that things are going ok and they can take longer if they want to... but that's my decision to make... I have no problem giving someone the 60 of that 60/40 split, but I need to be the one giving that option to someone, not them just taking it. I wouldn't stand for it on a regular basis. Not to say that I haven't taken that 60 but "paid it back" later on... cuz that's just how I view life in this respect.

My good friends and I will go out all the time and one person will usually say, "don't worry man, I got this bill" and then the next time you go out, it's my turn or another guys turn... as long as it's kept "fair" to some extent... I'm ok with that. Now, if I go out with a person, and pay a tab... I pretty much expect the other person to "stop me" from paying, but I won't usually bring it up and say... hey I got it last time... You wanna get this one... but I have said that due to being pretty much broke at the time...lol.

I'd say, in the long run my life has been a 60/40 split in general... since I'm definitely someone who likes to "give" but that is my choice and I'm ok with it as long as that choice is mine...

This line of thinking does get skewed when it comes to women that I'm interested in...lol. Call me old fashioned but I don't mind a 70/30 split to some extent if it's a girl i'm interested in and I don't feel like I'm being mooched off of.

[Mariano Rajoy]

There's no way I wouldn't expect a 50/50 split. If I didn't get it I'd take whatever I was given anyway but it would be filed in my memory as, "this person doesn't mind fucking me over" and later in life or even not that far off... I'd have no problem telling that person to go fuck themselves and cut off any contact with them or they'd just be a typical "acquaintance" that I may say hi to some times but not really anything more.

I think I would deal with them in a similar manner.

[Creepy-bg]

I've seen this "game" used as a sort of Turing test... that was mildly interesting.

[FDG]

Ok, now suppose the game was repeated. And that maybe instead of money being split, this game is to model certain social situations. The person that makes the offer has an incentive to offer you as little as they can get away with, and you are stuck with the decision between accepting an unfair offer and getting something, or refusing the offer and getting nothing at all, except a sense of fairness. Examples could be:
1) Suppose you like music and want to play it and start a band. You have a friend that wants to jam with you. However this friend never want to do anything serious, because they are already in a band. So, when you jam you end up just fucking around and not doing anything productive, such that you are not satisfied with the way this situation is turning out. Assume this takes place in a suburban community where it is difficult to meet other people, which eliminates the ideal option of finding a more commited person to play music with.
2) Suppose you are in a band, but after a while you notice that you have little say in the creative direction of the music that this band plays. Suppose you enjoy playing music anyways, but you are always unsatisfied because you have little say in the creative direction of the music. Again, this takes place in a suburban community so you have difficulty in finding another band but also if you left your current band the would also have a difficult time replacing you.

In these situation, sure, cooperating is better than nothing because you still get something out of the deal, but you are still left with a sour sense of unfairness.

Can anyone think of any other possible social situations this game could model(or approximately model)? Another thing that comes to mind is the "nice guys finish last" perspective.

Also, I've noticed that the more people you have access to, the less problems like this would arise. So, I got away from the suburbs as soon as I could.

But here the situation is different because you propose no alternatives.

A more compelling scenario would be a person being invited to be a part of a good rock band (100 dollars), but by being offered only a very marginal role (the lowest amount of money possible), even if he is just as good as the other components of the band, and the band needs an additional component (this last sentence to model the fact that if the receiver doesn't accept, then everybody loses).

In this situation, I would consider such a strategy which I would possibly follow for the iterated prisoner's dilemma (I don't remember the mathematical solution): I would first accept the invitation so that they could get a taste of what the band could be if I were to play with them (equivalent to accepting an offer of 1 dollar so that the other party can receive 99 dollars), then withdraw at the second stage. If the band was really better off with me than without me, they'd see that the differential in marginal revenue of losing me is higher than the differential in marginal cost of giving me a more important role. They'll give me a better position, and I'll accept.

[MysticSonic]

Everytime I compose an answer to this based on a certain amount of money not being useful($1), I keep coming back to thinking about something I can use it for(a bag of chips.) So, I guess the lowest offer I would accept would be .25, because anything lower would just be completely useless to me(mainly because I don't like any of those 10 cent candies), and for the simple fact that if I refuse him at any price higher than that, I get NOTHING. So unless there's some sort of context interacting with my acceptance of the money that would cause negative consequences if I were to choose a very low sum(loss of respect from others, him gaining a sense that he can work me over, etc.), I would, again, choose anything a quarter and above.