IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0116901.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emergent Dynamics of Fairness in the Spatial Coevolution of Proposer and Responder Species in the Ultimatum Game

Author

Listed:
  • Reiji Suzuki
  • Tomoko Okamoto
  • Takaya Arita

Abstract

While spatially local interactions are ubiquitous between coevolving species sharing recourses (e.g., plant-insect interactions), their effects on such coevolution processes of strategies involving the share of a resource are still not clearly understood. We construct a two-dimensional spatial model of the coevolution of the proposer and responder species in the ultimatum game (UG), in which a pair of proposer and responder individuals at each site plays the UG. We investigate the effects of the locality of interactions and the intensity of selection on the emergence of fairness between these species. We show that the lower intensity of selection favors fair strategies in general, and there are no significant differences in the evolution of fairness between the cases with local and global interactions when the intensity of selection is low. However, as the intensity of selection becomes higher, the spatially local interactions contribute to the evolution of fairer strategies more than the global interactions, even though fair strategies become more difficult to evolve. This positive effect of spatial interactions is expected to be due to the mutual benefit of fairness for both proposer and responder species in future generations, which brings about a dynamic evolution process of fairness.

Suggested Citation

  • Reiji Suzuki & Tomoko Okamoto & Takaya Arita, 2015. "Emergent Dynamics of Fairness in the Spatial Coevolution of Proposer and Responder Species in the Ultimatum Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0116901
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116901
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116901
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0116901&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0116901?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Henrich, 2000. "Does Culture Matter in Economic Behavior? Ultimatum Game Bargaining among the Machiguenga of the Peruvian Amazon," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 973-979, September.
    2. Joseph Henrich, 2000. "Does culture matter in economic behavior? Ultimatum game bargaining among the machiguenga," Artefactual Field Experiments 00067, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. 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.
    4. Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia & Sergi Lozano & Dirk Helbing, 2014. "Power and Fairness in a Generalized Ultimatum Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Liqi Zhu & Gerd Gigerenzer & Gang Huangfu, 2013. "Psychological Traces of China's Socio-Economic Reforms in the Ultimatum and Dictator Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-6, August.
    2. Werner, Katharina & Graf Lambsdorff, Johann, 2016. "Emotional numbing and lessons learned after a violent conflict - Experimental evidence from Ambon, Indonesia," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Volkswirtschaftliche Reihe V-74-16, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    3. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09hacc56d41 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. van Damme, Eric & Binmore, Kenneth G. & Roth, Alvin E. & Samuelson, Larry & Winter, Eyal & Bolton, Gary E. & Ockenfels, Axel & Dufwenberg, Martin & Kirchsteiger, Georg & Gneezy, Uri & Kocher, Martin G, 2014. "How Werner Güth's ultimatum game shaped our understanding of social behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 292-318.
    5. Horak, Sven, 2013. "Cross-cultural experimental economics and indigenous management research: Issues and contributions," Working Papers on East Asian Studies 92/2013, University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute of East Asian Studies IN-EAST.
    6. Luis José Blas Moreno Garrido, 2015. "Relative Injustice Aversion," Working Papers. Serie AD 2015-08, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    7. Hasan, Hamid & Ejaz, Nauman, 2013. "Testing for Differences across Genders: A Replication of Ultimatum Game at International Islamic University, Islamabad," MPRA Paper 44923, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. 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.
    9. Gilles Le Garrec, 2009. "Feeling guilty and redistributive politics," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-01066215, HAL.
    10. Petr Mach & Jan Pokorný & Radim Valenčík, 2023. "Analysis Tools Of Positional Investments And The Ultimatum Game," Economy & Business Journal, International Scientific Publications, Bulgaria, vol. 17(1), pages 166-180.
    11. Nicolas Eber & Marc Willinger, 2004. "Are Athletes Different ? An Experimental Study Based on the Ultimatum Game," Working Papers of LaRGE Research Center 2004-01, Laboratoire de Recherche en Gestion et Economie (LaRGE), Université de Strasbourg.
    12. Jun Luo & Yefeng Chen & Haoran He & Guanlin Gao, 2019. "Hukou identity and fairness in the ultimatum game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 389-420, October.
    13. Paul J. Ferraro & Ronald G. Cummings, 2007. "Cultural Diversity, Discrimination, And Economic Outcomes: An Experimental Analysis," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(2), pages 217-232, April.
    14. Cochard, François & Le Gallo, Julie & Georgantzis, Nikolaos & Tisserand, Jean-Christian, 2021. "Social preferences across different populations: Meta-analyses on the ultimatum game and dictator game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    15. Alexander Elbittar & Andrei Gomberg & Laura Sour, 2004. "Group Decision-Making in Ultimatum Bargaining: An Experimental Study," Working Papers 0407, Centro de Investigacion Economica, ITAM.
    16. Gagen, Michael, 2013. "Isomorphic Strategy Spaces in Game Theory," MPRA Paper 46176, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Hoffmann, Robert & Tee, Jin-Yee, 2006. "Adolescent-adult interactions and culture in the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 98-116, February.
    18. 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.
    19. Sebastian J. Goerg & Werner Güth & Gari Walkowitz & Torsten Weiland, 2007. "Interregional diversity of fairness concerns - An online ultimatum experiment," Jena Economics Research Papers 2007-016, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    20. Luigi Mittone & Andrew Musau, 2016. "Communication, sequentiality and strategic power. A prisoners� dilemma experiment," CEEL Working Papers 1603, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    21. Karell, Daniel & Schutte, Sebastian, 2018. "Aid, Exclusion, and the Local Dynamics of Insurgency in Afghanistan," SocArXiv 6ea2r, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0116901. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.