Skip to main content

The ultimatum game

One of the things it has taken economists a surprisingly long time to realize is that people don't always act rationally. And yet there's a simple little game psychologists have used for some time that demonstrates beautifully why we can't be relied on to do the sensible thing. It's a game in which people are offered money with no strings attached, and turn it down.

Here's how it works. The person running the game offers a sum of money, say £10, to two people. The first person's role is to decide how the money is split between the two of them. They might go for a fair 50:50 or could decide to keep 99% for themselves - the choice is theirs. But here's the thing. The second person can then say 'Yes' or 'No'. If player 2 he says 'Yes', the money is awarded according to the split the first person decided on. If player 2 says 'No', neither of the players gets any money. This is a one-off game - it's not repeated.

Now, if player 2 was making a rational decision, they would say 'Yes' whatever the split. Because, however small the amount, they are getting money for nothing. In practice, though, unless player 1 offers the second person around 30% of the cash, the tendency is to say 'No'. They'd rather lose the money than be screwed.

That's as far as the game is usually reported. I must admit, I'd like to see more - specifically a range of games with different stakes. While I would certainly say 'No' if I was offered 1p out of a pound, I would definitely say 'Yes' to £1 million out of £100 million. It would be interesting to see where different people's breakpoint between 'Yes' and 'No' was - and to try to identify why that breakpoint is at that level.

It's probably quite a sophisticated decision. For instance, I would say 'Yes' to £1 if the other player was getting £9, but I would say 'No' if they were getting £999,999. What would you do? (And does anyone know of research going into this more detailed analysis of behaviour?)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope