# The ultimatum game: An experimental economics poll **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 29, 2010, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimatum-game-an-experimental-economics-poll/548414 "2010-07-29T03:34:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimatum-game-an-experimental-economics-poll/548414/101 "2010-08-03T20:03:05Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Not true. Offering 99% would be “most likely to be accepted”. Anything less than that is risk-taking. Not true. Offering 100% would be “most likely to be accepted”. > [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > You guys are all saying you’ll offer 50/50 because you might, just might, run into a guy that wants to screw you instead of taking the money. But what you haven’t explained is why you think that’ll stop if you give him 50%. > > You offer 30%, he says no. > 35%? No. > 40%? No. > 45%? No. > > Now here’s the kicker. What makes you think that if you say 50%, that he’ll change his mind? Because the thought experiment assumes he knows how much money you were given to begin with. If you give him 50% he’s very likely to think that he’s receiving a fair share. Yes, we might run into someone like you but the vast majority of people- both in this thread and in the real world- are going to consider the money communally owned, not the property of the first participant. If it belonged to the first participant, the experimenter wouldn’t be able to take it all back in the case of a rejected offer. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimatum-game-an-experimental-economics-poll/548414/102 "2010-08-03T20:06:30Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > \If it belonged to the first participant, the experimenter wouldn’t be able to take it all back in the case of a rejected offer. Exactly. The word “given” was used in the context of the first person was handed the money to split up, not given the money as his to keep and he was giving some of his money to the second person. ---
**Author:** ![Walton\_Firm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/45deac/32.png) [@Walton\_Firm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walton_Firm)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimatum-game-an-experimental-economics-poll/548414/103 "2010-08-03T20:33:59Z")
I created the obvious counterpart to this poll: what is the minimum offer you would accept if you were the second player? > **[You are the second player in the Ultimatum Game. What will you accept?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=573320)** > > Here is the obvious counterpart to this thread. You and one other person, who you haven’t met before and will probably never meet again, have volunteered for a scientific experiment. As it turns out, the experiment is quite simple: the experimenter... ---
**Author:** ![MeanOldLady](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/meanoldlady/32/10737_2.png) [@MeanOldLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MeanOldLady)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimatum-game-an-experimental-economics-poll/548414/104 "2010-08-03T20:36:50Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > [QUOTE=Cat Whisperer] > one person is given the entire sum of money then allowed to make a single, take-it-or-leave-it offer to the second person. So the money belongs to the first person. The second has no claim whatsoever to this money. [/quote] No, it does not. Yes, the second person does. The OP clearly states the money is for both people, so long as they can agree on how it is disbursed. The rest is just details of the rules of disbursement. You cannot clip out the entire scenario and zone in on the word “given” as it applies to Player 1 to say it means the money is his. It is “given” to him for disbursement purposes only. It’s theirs to split, and they have to agree on how that’s done. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimatum-game-an-experimental-economics-poll/548414/105 "2010-08-03T20:45:45Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > So the money belongs to the first person. The second has no claim whatsoever to this money. Actually, Second has absolute power over whether either of them gets anything at all. From a certain perspective, that’s more power, more “claim” by force, than First has. From the perspective of right, neither has any claim at all. Neither did anything to earn even one dollar. There’s no tragedy in both “losing” the money. > [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > What makes you think that if you say 50%, that he’ll change his mind? Moreover, why does your conscience suddenly resolve itself when you offer 50%? Why aren’t you guilted into offering 55%? What would you do if the guy said, staight out, that he’s not taking anything less that 60%? Because 50-50 is the obvious and natural division of a quantity into two portions, of course. If the other guy, as Second, says he won’t take less than 60%, then he won’t get anything. I’d reject anything other than the obvious natural division, from either side, because there is _no basis_ for anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimatum-game-an-experimental-economics-poll/548414/106 "2010-08-03T21:15:19Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > No way. 99% and 50% would have essentially identical acceptance rates. Remember, this isn’t haggling, it’s one offer and if you decline the offer goes away. The only reason to turn down a proposal is if you feel the amount offered is sufficiently trivial to be downright insulting. No one is going to that react negatively to being offered 50%. > > e: > > > [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > > > Who says “fair” is 50% and not 40% or 60%? Where is that written? > > Really? You don’t see where that perception comes from? It’s because 50/50 means both parties get the same amount. And getting the same amount is a special outcome because…why? Is it jealousy? Player 2 is just jealous that didn’t get to be player 1? > [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > Yes, we might run into someone like you but the vast majority of people- both in this thread and in the real world- are going to consider the money communally owned, not the property of the first participant. If it belonged to the first participant, the experimenter wouldn’t be able to take it all back in the case of a rejected offer. The vast majority of people in the real world accept 35%-40%, though. So they don’t, in fact, consider the money community-owned, nor should they. P1 gets money and P2 has power. That’s the only thing that needs to be considered. If you want to consider there to be a magic number, it’s 40%, not 50%. Furthermore, I don’t like that people are thinking in terms of dollars. The only fair way to pose the question, I think, is in percentages. Otherwise, the whole thing changes. What if, instead of dividing $1,000, you had to divide a dime? Then no one cares at all. They might just give the whole thing to the other guy or just leave it sitting there on the table. But if it’s $1,000,000, people will take just $100. But hey, that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimatum-game-an-experimental-economics-poll/548414/107 "2010-08-03T21:25:19Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > And getting the same amount is a special outcome because…why? Is it jealousy? Player 2 is just jealous that didn’t get to be player 1? Yes, that would be the most likely cause. When one participant in the experiment is given special treatment for no apparent reason, this is commonly perceived as unfair, and they are very likely to feel envious and be inclined to punish the person receiving special treatment (or wanting to make a statement to the same effect). I’m suprised this is a new concept for you. ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimatum-game-an-experimental-economics-poll/548414/108 "2010-08-03T21:31:33Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > > [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > > > And getting the same amount is a special outcome because…why? Is it jealousy? Player 2 is just jealous that didn’t get to be player 1? > > Yes, that would be the most likely cause. When one participant in the experiment is given special treatment for no apparent reason, this is commonly perceived as unfair, and they are very likely to feel envious and be inclined to punish the person receiving special treatment (or wanting to make a statement to the same effect). I’m suprised this is a new concept for you. I’m not saying I don’t understand the jealousy. I know that plays a role. What I don’t get is why people think that it evaporates at 50%. It doesn’t. Not in experiments, not in game theory, not anywhere. I realize that some people say “50%! Not a penny less!” but the fact is, most people don’t say that. They want 40% and some even want \>51%! So why, as player 1, should I pick this magic number of 50%? It’s not the center of the bell curve. It’s not the upper limit of the curve either. If you guys want to see some weird effects of this “irrationality”, you should look into conflict/war theory. War is costly. It would be better if two parties could just agree to split the issue in dispute. There are often a number of acceptible compromises that leave a faction better off than fighting a war. But we still fight wars…why? ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimatum-game-an-experimental-economics-poll/548414/109 "2010-08-03T21:33:27Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > The vast majority of people in the real world accept 35%-40%, though. So they don’t, in fact, consider the money community-owned, nor should they. The fact that people would be willing to accept less than half has nothing to do with whether they consider the money communally owned or not. It has to with the fact that they’d rather have something than nothing. ---
**Author:** ![YamatoTwinkie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/cc9497/32.png) [@YamatoTwinkie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YamatoTwinkie)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimatum-game-an-experimental-economics-poll/548414/110 "2010-08-12T21:49:06Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > What I don’t get is why people think that it evaporates at 50%. It doesn’t. Not in experiments, not in game theory, not anywhere. I realize that some people say “50%! Not a penny less!” but the fact is, most people don’t say that. They want 40% and some even want \>51%! So why, as player 1, should I pick this magic number of 50%? It’s not the center of the bell curve. It’s not the upper limit of the curve either. 50% might not be the upper limit of the curve, but I’d expect if this game was plotted statistically, you’d see an _extreme_ taper off of rejections after precisely 50.0%. I’d even expect there to be a noticeably jump between 49.9% and 50%, just based on human nature, as well as some of the responses in this thread. An even split for even work is something that’s been hardwired into most of us since birth, possibly even before then. If I were to guess, you’d see a 90% acceptance rate when offering 60/40 split, but you’d get a 99% acceptance rate at a 50/50 split. So ~60/40 might represent the optimum strategy when averaged over multiple offers, but for a single offer, 50/50 reduces a substantial amount of risk. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-ultimatum-game-an-experimental-economics-poll/548414.md?page=5)