Ultimatum bargaining: From synapse to society Colin F. Camerer, Caltech  Ultimatum game: –Proposer offers division of $10; responder accepts or rejects.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 16: Focquaert, F., & Platek, S.M. Social cognition and the evolution of self-awareness (pp ). Hypothesis: Human self-awareness arose because.
Advertisements

People, preferences and society Lecture 13 – academic year 2014/15 Introduction to Economics Fabio Landini.
Ultimatum Game Two players bargain (anonymously) to divide a fixed amount between them. P1 (proposer) offers a division of the “pie” P2 (responder) decides.
1 On the Methodology of Inequity Aversion Theory.
“So you want to be a Chair?” June 24, 2011 American Orthopedic Association Copyright © President & Fellows of Harvard College. ©Copyright 2011 Andy Wasynczuk.
Brandts and Solà: Reference Points and Negative Reciprocity in Simple Sequential Games Economics 328 Spring 2005.
Bargaining and Psychology Lecture One: The Structure & Evolution of Preferences Keith Chen, Nov 3 rd 2004.
4. EXTENSIVE-FORM GAMES.
Morality and Sociality Moral Decision-Making: Personal Dilemmas Question: Are you moral? Moral Judgments: Impersonal Decisions Question: Is an act moral?
M. Bhatt & C. Camerer Games and Economic Behavior, 2005.
Workshop on Proposed Revisions to the Common Rule in Relation to the Behavioral and Social Sciences Risks and Harm: Possible Extensions of Exempt/Excused.
UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Review Midterm3/21 3/7.
Behavioral Game Theory: A Brief Introduction Networked Life CSE 112 Spring 2005 Prof. Michael Kearns Supplementary slides courtesy of Colin Camerer, CalTech.
PSY 5018H: Math Models Hum Behavior, Prof. Paul Schrater, Spring 2004.
Motivations and observed behaviour: Evidence from ultimatum bargaining experiment Elena Tougareva Laboratory of Social and Economic Psychology, Institute.
UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Review Midterm3/23 3/2.
Teck H. Ho 1 Peer-induced Fairness in Games Teck H. Ho University of California, Berkeley (Joint Work with Xuanming Su) October, 2009.
Introduction to Game Theory and Behavior Networked Life CIS 112 Spring 2009 Prof. Michael Kearns.
SS200: Social preferences Colin F. Camerer, Caltech  Self-interest is a useful, common assumption…but!  Skepticism that any social preference other than.
Playing Unfair: Punishment in Bargaining and Negotiations Deborah Kay Elms IPES Conference November 14, 2008.
UNIT II: The Basic Theory Zero-sum Games Nonzero-sum Games Nash Equilibrium: Properties and Problems Bargaining Games Review Midterm3/19 3/5.
Nature of Science.
Economics for Leaders The Ultimatum Game. Proposal Selection Form Proposer Identification Code __________________ Circle a proposal: 9/1 8/2 7/3 6/4 5/5.
The Neural Basis of Economic Decision-making in the Ultimatum Game Jonathan D. Cohen lab, Princeton University Deborah Bird November 14, 2008.
Proposal Selection Form Proposer Identification Code __________________ Circle a proposal: 19/1 18/2 17/3 16/4 15/5 14/6 13/7 12/8 11/9 10/10 9/11 8/12.
1 University of Auckland Winter Week Lectures Fourth Lecture 5 July 2007 Associate Professor Ananish Chaudhuri Department of Economics University of Auckland.
Coalition Formation between Self-Interested Heterogeneous Actors Arlette van Wissen Bart Kamphorst Virginia DignumKobi Gal.
Public and Private Families Chapter 1. Increasing ambivalence Women in workforce vs. children in day care Divorce vs. unhappy marriage.
Equity Preferences in Relation to Culture Comparing India, Peru, and the US.
Role of Research The OOPS Survey and Types of Educational Research.
Team Formation between Heterogeneous Actors Arlette van Wissen Virginia Dignum Kobi Gal Bart Kamphorst.
Research methods in psychology Simple revision points.
Course Behavioral Economics Alessandro InnocentiAlessandro Innocenti Academic year Lecture 14 Fairness LECTURE 14 FAIRNESS Aim: To analyze the.
SS200: Social preferences Colin F. Camerer, Caltech  Self-interest is a useful, common assumption…but!  Skepticism that any social preference other than.
Bargaining Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want …; and.
Evolution of cooperation in Stackelberg games Raimo P. Hämäläinen Ilkka Leppänen Systems Analysis Laboratory Aalto University.
Lecture 2 Economic Actors and Organizations: Motivation and Behavior.
The Evolution of Fairness PSC 120 Jeff Schank. Fairness People engage in fair exchanges of resources even when it would benefit them more to act unfairly.
Experimental Economics and Neuroeconomics. An Illustration: Rules.
Inequity aversion in mice Whitney Swain Advisor: Dr. Lustofin Humans are a social species who often feel like they have been treated unfairly if they do.
Announcements For Tuesday, Oct. 21 st : Problem Set 6 For Tuesday, Oct. 21 st : Problem Set 6 For Thursday, Oct. 23 rd : Dating Survey (link to be sent.
Negotiation 101 Fairness and the importance of looking ahead.
Theory of Mind Enhances Preference for Fairness Haruto Takagishi 1,2, Shinya Kameshima 3, Joanna Schug 1, Michiko Koizumi 1, Toshio Yamagishi 1 1 Hokkaido.
Lecture 8. Crossroads of economics and cognitive science Xavier Gabaix April 1, 2004.
THE SCIENCE OF BIOLOGY. Biology The study of Life Key aspect of biology:  The study of one living thing always involves studying other living things.
 The Scientific Method involves a series of steps that are used to investigate a natural occurrence.
Explicit versus Implicit Contracts for Dividing the Benefits of Cooperation Marco Casari and Timothy Cason Purdue University.
Taking pride in cooperation Job van der Schalk,Tony Manstead Cardiff University, School of Psychology Martin Bruder University of Konstanz.
Neuroeconomics Jaeseung Jeong, Ph.D
UNSW | BUSINESS SCHOOL | SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS Calling the shots Experimental evidence on significant aversion to non-existing strategic risk Ben Greiner.
1 Ultimatum Bargaining with Emotion Expression: Effects of Social Value Orientation and of Gender on Responders' Behavior Yifat Hibner, Yuval Samid & Ramzi.
Scientific Methodology Vodcast 1.1 Unit 1: Introduction to Biology.
Experiments and “Rational” Behavior, 5/1/07. Beauty Contest Game Each person choose a number from 0 to 100. We will average these numbers. The person.
Experimental games and economics Ilkka Leppänen Systems Analysis Laboratory Aalto University, Finland.
Bargaining1 Bargaining Behavior A sequential bargaining game Predictions and actual behavior Comparative statics of bargaining behavior Fairness and the.
Yu-Hsuan Lin Catholic University of Korea, Korea University of York, U.K. 5 th Congress of EAAERE, Taipei, 06 th – 07 th August 2015.
Proposal Selection Form
Sample Exam Questions 1. The ways in which social groups and institutions affect an individual's behavior is related to A cross cultural psychology B.
Economics 430/530 EXPERIMENTAL ECONOMICS Spring 2012
Examples of Laboratory Experiments
ECON 100 Lecture 7 Monday, February 25.
Attribution – NonCommercial - ShareAlike
Trust and Markets Daniel Houser Professor of Economics
Shapley Value Regression
Unit 4 SOCIAL INTERACTIONS.
Gönül Doğan, Marcel van Assen, Jan Potters Tilburg University
Alternative-offer bargainging
Sally’s Negotiation Dynamics
NEEDS vs WANTS NEEDS Essentials…the basics of life Food Clothing
Presentation transcript:

Ultimatum bargaining: From synapse to society Colin F. Camerer, Caltech  Ultimatum game: –Proposer offers division of $10; responder accepts or rejects  Theories: –Rejections express social preferences (care about $, envy, guilt) –“Unnatural habitat” (adapted to repeated games, one-shot is Stroop)  Variants: –Dictator games (same responsibility?) –Demographics (generally weak) –Stakes– rejected $ goes up, % goes down –Repetition etc.– weak –Low information about “pie” size  lower offers (and “pleading poverty ”) –Proposer competition  offers give most to responder –Two-stage games  responders (weakly) accept lower offers because proposers have an “excuse” (intentions matter)

Game-ending ultimatum rejections are like “disadvantageous counterproposals” in longer games

US data (Roth et al 1991)

Ultimatum vs dictator “games” (Forsythe et al 1994) NB: Dictator games are “weak situations”, more variance

Low, medium, high stakes (Slonim-Roth 1998)

Do players learn to accept low offers at high stakes?

Special subject pools & conditions  Neural evidence (ACC, DLPFC, insula for low offers; difference predicts rejection r=.4)  Autistics offer less (don’t expect rejection) –Adults learn to take “objective stance”  Cutting-off-nose effect (Monkeys reject unequal pay, Brosnan and De Waal, Science 9/18/03; F capuchins will refuse exchange for low payoff if others get high payoff)  Small-scale societies –Variation in mean offer (some offer very little) –Fair offers correlated with “market integration” and “cooperativeness”

“Market” games (9-proposer competition)

Intentions matter (Falk et al 99) (cf. law e.g. manslaughter vs murder)

Sanfey et al fMRI study (Sci 13 March ’03)

“ask the brain”: within (L) and pooled (R) correlations of insula and DLPFC activity & rejection

Feeling: This is your brain on unfairness

Pain circuitry

Ultimatum offer experimental sites

slash & burn gathered foods fishing hunting The Machiguenga independent families cash cropping

African pastoralists (Kenya)

Whale Hunters of Lamalera, Indonesia High levels of cooperation among hunters of whales, sharks, dolphins and rays. Protein for carbs trade with inlanders Researcher: Mike Alvard

Ultimatum offers across societies (mean shaded, mode is largest circle…)

Fair offers correlate with market integration (top), cooperativeness in everyday life (bottom)

Ultimatum offers of children who failed/passed false belief test

Autistics v normals (adults top, children bottom)

Israeli subject (autistic?) complaining post- experiment (Zamir, 2000)

Unnatural habit hypothesis…  "Although subjects fully understand the rules of the game and its payoff structure, their behavior is influenced by an unconscious perception that the situation they are facing is part of a much more extended game of similar real-life interactions…We believe that it is practically impossible to create laboratory conditions that would cancel out this effect and induce subjects to act as if they were facing an anonymous one-shot [ultimatum game]." (Winter & Zamir, 1997)

Testing theories: New ideas  How to separate preference vs unnatural habitat views? –Role of emotions –Look for cross-game regularity in measured preferences –Learning (…or is it temporary satiation?) –fMRI and ACC Stroop interpretations