IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/phsmap/v390y2011i23p4227-4235.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The coevolutionary ultimatum game on different network topologies

Author

Listed:
  • Deng, Lili
  • Tang, Wansheng
  • Zhang, Jianxiong

Abstract

In this paper, a model of ultimatum game is discussed from the coevolutionary perspective, where strategy dynamics and structure dynamics coexist. The interplay between structure dynamics and strategy dynamics leads to overwhelmingly interesting evolved topology and fairness behaviors. It is found that fair division emerges for specific ratios of structure updating probability to strategy updating probability. Furthermore, it is shown that the initial structures have no essentially different effect on the coevolutionary results. In particular, the results for strategy are almost similar whenever the initial structure is set to be the nearest-neighbor coupled network, the ER random network or the scale-free network. Besides, the effects of other spatial factors are also investigated, e.g. the population size has a positive influence on the offer, while the average degree has a negative effect. In addition, one extrinsic factor, the background payoff, is also of great importance in promoting fair divisions. Apart from above, we study the properties of the evolved networks, which have the small-world effect and positive assortative behaviors.

Suggested Citation

  • Deng, Lili & Tang, Wansheng & Zhang, Jianxiong, 2011. "The coevolutionary ultimatum game on different network topologies," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 390(23), pages 4227-4235.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:phsmap:v:390:y:2011:i:23:p:4227-4235
    DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2011.06.076
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437111005231
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only. Journal offers the option of making the article available online on Science direct for a fee of $3,000
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.physa.2011.06.076?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bethwaite, Judy & Tompkinson, Paul, 1996. "The ultimatum game and non-selfish utility functions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 259-271, April.
    2. Bolton Gary E. & Zwick Rami, 1995. "Anonymity versus Punishment in Ultimatum Bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 95-121, July.
    3. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Alexander Peterhansl & Peter S. Dodds & Duncan J. Watts, 2007. "Cooperation in Evolving Social Networks," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(7), pages 1036-1050, July.
    4. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2003. "The nature of human altruism," Nature, Nature, vol. 425(6960), pages 785-791, October.
    5. Bo, Xianyu & Yang, Jianmei, 2010. "Evolutionary ultimatum game on complex networks under incomplete information," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 389(5), pages 1115-1123.
    6. Kirchsteiger, Georg, 1994. "The role of envy in ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 373-389, December.
    7. Thaler, Richard H, 1988. "The Ultimatum Game," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 195-206, Fall.
    8. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    9. Fu, Feng & Chen, Xiaojie & Liu, Lianghuan & Wang, Long, 2007. "Promotion of cooperation induced by the interplay between structure and game dynamics," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 383(2), pages 651-659.
    10. M. N. Kuperman & S. Risau-Gusman, 2008. "The effect of the topology on the spatial ultimatum game," The European Physical Journal B: Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, Springer;EDP Sciences, vol. 62(2), pages 233-238, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Deng, Lili & Wang, Hongsi & Wang, Rugen & Xu, Ronghua & Wang, Cheng, 2024. "The adaptive adjustment of node weights based on reputation and memory promotes fairness," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    2. Deng, Lili & Zhang, Xingxing & Wang, Cheng, 2021. "Coevolution of spatial ultimatum game and link weight promotes fairness," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 392(C).
    3. Zhao, Yakun & Xiong, Tianyu & Zheng, Lei & Li, Yumeng & Chen, Xiaojie, 2020. "The effect of similarity on the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    4. Deng, Lili & Lin, Ying & Wang, Cheng & Xu, Ronghua & Zhou, Gengui, 2020. "Effects of coupling strength and coupling schemes between interdependent lattices on the evolutionary ultimatum game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 540(C).
    5. Wang, Lu & Ye, Shun-qiang & Jones, Michael C. & Ye, Ye & Wang, Meng & Xie, Neng-gang, 2015. "The evolutionary analysis of the ultimatum game based on the net-profit decision," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 430(C), pages 32-38.
    6. Takesue, Hirofumi, 2019. "Effects of updating rules on the coevolving prisoner’s dilemma," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 513(C), pages 399-408.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xiaofeng Wang & Xiaojie Chen & Long Wang, 2020. "Evolution of egalitarian social norm by resource management," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, January.
    2. Zheng, Lei & Li, Youqi & Zhou, Jingsai & Li, Yumeng, 2022. "The effect of celebrity on the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 585(C).
    3. Gagen, Michael, 2013. "Isomorphic Strategy Spaces in Game Theory," MPRA Paper 46176, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Stahl, Dale O. & Haruvy, Ernan, 2008. "Subgame perfection in ultimatum bargaining trees," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 292-307, May.
    5. Huck, Steffen & Oechssler, Jorg, 1999. "The Indirect Evolutionary Approach to Explaining Fair Allocations," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 13-24, July.
    6. Deng, Lili & Wang, Hongsi & Wang, Rugen & Xu, Ronghua & Wang, Cheng, 2024. "The adaptive adjustment of node weights based on reputation and memory promotes fairness," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    7. Binmore, Ken & McCarthy, John & Ponti, Giovanni & Samuelson, Larry & Shaked, Avner, 2002. "A Backward Induction Experiment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 104(1), pages 48-88, May.
    8. M. Christian Lehmann, 2022. "Fairness preferences as a cause of inefficient war," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 6(1), pages 33-36, December.
    9. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    10. Bogliacino, Francesco & Codagnone, Cristiano, 2021. "Microfoundations, behaviour, and evolution: Evidence from experiments," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 372-385.
    11. Shanshan Zhen & Rongjun Yu, 2016. "Tend to Compare and Tend to Be Fair: The Relationship between Social Comparison Sensitivity and Justice Sensitivity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-17, May.
    12. Mason, Charles F. & Nowell, Cliff, 1998. "An experimental analysis of subgame perfect play: the entry deterrence game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 443-462, December.
    13. Qi, Tianxiao & Xu, Bin & Wu, Jinshan & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2022. "On the Stochasticity of Ultimatum Games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 227-254.
    14. Huck, Steffen, 1999. "Responder behavior in ultimatum offer games with incomplete information," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 183-206, April.
    15. Lopomo, Giuseppe & Ok, Efe A, 2001. "Bargaining, Interdependence, and the Rationality of Fair Division," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(2), pages 263-283, Summer.
    16. Caginalp, Gunduz & Ho, Shirley J., 2018. "Does competition inhibit fairness and altruism?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 54-64.
    17. Frank, Bjorn, 1998. "Good news for experimenters: subjects do not care about your welfare," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 171-174, November.
    18. Casal, Sandro & Güth, Werner & Jia, Mofei & Ploner, Matteo, 2012. "Would you mind if I get more? An experimental study of the envy game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 857-865.
    19. Costa-Gomes, Miguel & Zauner, Klaus G., 2001. "Ultimatum Bargaining Behavior in Israel, Japan, Slovenia, and the United States: A Social Utility Analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 238-269, February.
    20. Zhao, Yakun & Xiong, Tianyu & Zheng, Lei & Li, Yumeng & Chen, Xiaojie, 2020. "The effect of similarity on the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:phsmap:v:390:y:2011:i:23:p:4227-4235. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/physica-a-statistical-mechpplications/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.