Suppr超能文献

拒绝最后通牒游戏中的不公平提议并不能证明强烈的互惠性。

Rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is no evidence of strong reciprocity.

机构信息

Brain Science Institute, Tamagawa University, Machida, Tokyo 194-8610, Japan.

出版信息

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Dec 11;109(50):20364-8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212126109. Epub 2012 Nov 27.

Abstract

The strong reciprocity model of the evolution of human cooperation has gained some acceptance, partly on the basis of support from experimental findings. The observation that unfair offers in the ultimatum game are frequently rejected constitutes an important piece of the experimental evidence for strong reciprocity. In the present study, we have challenged the idea that the rejection response in the ultimatum game provides evidence of the assumption held by strong reciprocity theorists that negative reciprocity observed in the ultimatum game is inseparably related to positive reciprocity as the two sides of a preference for fairness. The prediction of an inseparable relationship between positive and negative reciprocity was rejected on the basis of the results of a series of experiments that we conducted using the ultimatum game, the dictator game, the trust game, and the prisoner's dilemma game. We did not find any correlation between the participants' tendencies to reject unfair offers in the ultimatum game and their tendencies to exhibit various prosocial behaviors in the other games, including their inclinations to positively reciprocate in the trust game. The participants' responses to postexperimental questions add support to the view that the rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is a tacit strategy for avoiding the imposition of an inferior status.

摘要

人类合作进化的强互惠模型已经得到了一些认可,部分原因是基于实验结果的支持。在最后通牒博弈中不公平的提议经常被拒绝,这一观察结果构成了强互惠理论的重要实验证据。在本研究中,我们对以下观点提出了挑战,即在最后通牒博弈中拒绝反应提供了强互惠理论家假设的证据,即最后通牒博弈中观察到的负面互惠与公平偏好的两个方面的正面互惠密不可分。我们通过一系列使用最后通牒博弈、独裁者博弈、信任博弈和囚徒困境博弈进行的实验,否定了积极互惠和消极互惠之间不可分割关系的预测。我们没有发现参与者在最后通牒博弈中拒绝不公平提议的倾向与他们在其他游戏中表现出各种亲社会行为的倾向之间存在任何相关性,包括他们在信任博弈中积极互惠的倾向。参与者对实验后问题的回答进一步支持了这样一种观点,即拒绝不公平的提议是一种避免被强加劣势地位的默契策略。

相似文献

1
Rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is no evidence of strong reciprocity.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Dec 11;109(50):20364-8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212126109. Epub 2012 Nov 27.
2
[A test of the strong reciprocity model: relationship between cooperation and punishment].
Shinrigaku Kenkyu. 2014 Apr;85(1):100-5. doi: 10.4992/jjpsy.85.100.
3
Behavioral and neuronal determinants of negative reciprocity in the ultimatum game.
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2016 Oct;11(10):1608-17. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsw069. Epub 2016 Jun 3.
4
The private rejection of unfair offers and emotional commitment.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jul 14;106(28):11520-3. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0900636106. Epub 2009 Jun 29.
7
Preference and strategy in proposer's prosocial giving in the ultimatum game.
PLoS One. 2018 Mar 5;13(3):e0193877. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193877. eCollection 2018.
8
Individuals in the criminal justice system show differences in cooperative behaviour: Implications from cooperative games.
Crim Behav Ment Health. 2015 Jul;25(3):169-80. doi: 10.1002/cbm.1920. Epub 2014 Jun 9.
9
Overcoming selfishness: reciprocity, inhibition, and cardiac-autonomic control in the ultimatum game.
Front Psychol. 2011 Jul 27;2:173. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00173. eCollection 2011.
10
Diverging effects of clean versus dirty money on attitudes, values, and interpersonal behavior.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2013 Mar;104(3):473-89. doi: 10.1037/a0030596. Epub 2012 Nov 5.

引用本文的文献

2
Deliberately ignoring inequality to avoid rejecting unfair offers.
Commun Psychol. 2024 May 24;2(1):48. doi: 10.1038/s44271-024-00093-6.
3
Trait reward sensitivity modulates connectivity with the temporoparietal junction and Anterior Insula during strategic decision making.
Biol Psychol. 2024 Oct;192:108857. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2024.108857. Epub 2024 Aug 27.
4
Time pressure and deliberation affect moral punishment.
Sci Rep. 2024 Jul 16;14(1):16378. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-67268-3.
5
Are Older Adults More Prosocial Than Younger Adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Gerontologist. 2024 Sep 1;64(9). doi: 10.1093/geront/gnae082.
6
Dopamine and serotonin in human substantia nigra track social context and value signals during economic exchange.
Nat Hum Behav. 2024 Apr;8(4):718-728. doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-01831-w. Epub 2024 Feb 26.
7
Unravelling the many facets of human cooperation in an experimental study.
Sci Rep. 2023 Nov 10;13(1):19573. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-46944-w.
9
Punishment: one tool, many uses.
Evol Hum Sci. 2019 Nov 12;1:e12. doi: 10.1017/ehs.2019.12. eCollection 2019.
10
Social preferences trump emotions in human responses to unfair offers.
Sci Rep. 2023 Jun 13;13(1):9602. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-36715-y.

本文引用的文献

1
Strong reciprocity, human cooperation, and the enforcement of social norms.
Hum Nat. 2002 Mar;13(1):1-25. doi: 10.1007/s12110-002-1012-7.
2
Reciprocity: weak or strong? What punishment experiments do (and do not) demonstrate.
Behav Brain Sci. 2012 Feb;35(1):1-15. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X11000069.
3
Testosterone administration decreases generosity in the ultimatum game.
PLoS One. 2009 Dec 16;4(12):e8330. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008330.
4
Prejudice and truth about the effect of testosterone on human bargaining behaviour.
Nature. 2010 Jan 21;463(7279):356-9. doi: 10.1038/nature08711.
5
The private rejection of unfair offers and emotional commitment.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jul 14;106(28):11520-3. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0900636106. Epub 2009 Jun 29.
6
High-testosterone men reject low ultimatum game offers.
Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Sep 22;274(1623):2327-30. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.0546.
7
Prosocials prefer equal outcomes to maximizing joint outcomes.
Br J Soc Psychol. 2006 Jun;45(Pt 2):321-37. doi: 10.1348/014466605X52290.
8
The competitive advantage of sanctioning institutions.
Science. 2006 Apr 7;312(5770):108-11. doi: 10.1126/science.1123633.
9
Evolution of indirect reciprocity.
Nature. 2005 Oct 27;437(7063):1291-8. doi: 10.1038/nature04131.
10
Emotion expression in human punishment behavior.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 May 17;102(20):7398-401. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0502399102. Epub 2005 May 6.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验