two results of the ultimatum game
Evidence from animal studies in rodents shows that testosterone causes aggressive behaviour towards conspecifics. Folk wisdom generalizes and adapts these findings to humans, suggesting that testosterone induces antisocial, egoistic, or even aggressive human behaviours. [ ... ] Here we show that the sublingual administration of a single dose of testosterone in women causes a substantial increase in fair bargaining behaviour, thereby reducing bargaining conflicts and increasing the efficiency of social interactions. However, subjects who believed that they received testosterone-regardless of whether they actually received it or not-behaved much more unfairly than those who believed that they were treated with placebo. Thus, the folk hypothesis seems to generate a strong negative association between subjects’ beliefs and the fairness of their offers, even though testosterone administration actually causes a substantial increase in the frequency of fair bargaining offers in our experiment.
[...] Among the interactive games developed to examine prosocial behaviour, the ultimatum bargaining game can be used for this purpose. In this game real money is at stake and two parties, A and B, have to agree on the division of 10 money units (MUs). Party A, the proposer, can propose how the 10 MUs will be allocated between A and B. Party B, the responder, can only accept or reject A's proposal, but cannot make a counteroffer. Thus, A has the power to stipulate an ultimatum to B, which gave the game its name. If B accepts A's proposal, the proposed allocation will be implemented. Party B can also veto A's proposal, however; in this case, neither party earns anything.
Many studies indicate that subjects perceive low offers in the ultimatum game to be unfair, whereas the equal split is the salient fairness norm in this situation. [...]
The folk hypothesis predicts that proposers who received testosterone will make lower offers. In contrast to this prediction, subjects who received testosterone actually made significantly higher offers...
* Some biological evidence for rejecting unfair offers comes from an experiment run by Terry Burnham. In his version of the ultimatum game, the amount at stake was $40 and the subjects were male Harvard graduate students. The divider was given only two choices: offer $25 and keep $15 or offer $5 and keep $35. Among those offered only $5, twenty students accepted and six rejected, giving themselves and the divider both zero. Now for the punch line. It turns out that the six who rejected the offer had testosterone levels 50 percent higher than those who accepted the offer.
*
[...] Among the interactive games developed to examine prosocial behaviour, the ultimatum bargaining game can be used for this purpose. In this game real money is at stake and two parties, A and B, have to agree on the division of 10 money units (MUs). Party A, the proposer, can propose how the 10 MUs will be allocated between A and B. Party B, the responder, can only accept or reject A's proposal, but cannot make a counteroffer. Thus, A has the power to stipulate an ultimatum to B, which gave the game its name. If B accepts A's proposal, the proposed allocation will be implemented. Party B can also veto A's proposal, however; in this case, neither party earns anything.
Many studies indicate that subjects perceive low offers in the ultimatum game to be unfair, whereas the equal split is the salient fairness norm in this situation. [...]
The folk hypothesis predicts that proposers who received testosterone will make lower offers. In contrast to this prediction, subjects who received testosterone actually made significantly higher offers...
* Some biological evidence for rejecting unfair offers comes from an experiment run by Terry Burnham. In his version of the ultimatum game, the amount at stake was $40 and the subjects were male Harvard graduate students. The divider was given only two choices: offer $25 and keep $15 or offer $5 and keep $35. Among those offered only $5, twenty students accepted and six rejected, giving themselves and the divider both zero. Now for the punch line. It turns out that the six who rejected the offer had testosterone levels 50 percent higher than those who accepted the offer.
*