How Does Being Trusted Affect Sharing? Findings from the Ultimatum Game

Abstract

Individual personalities, situational factors, and social interactions impact the fair sharing of justice. This study was conducted on 412 adults and investigated how behaviors were shaped in the Ultimatum Game. Therefore, three cases were determined, and the bidder was instructed to divide 10 thousand TL first in the typical game. Afterward, it was said that the other person was in need, and the bid was requested to be renewed. At the last stage, bids were received if there was any doubt about the needy. Consistency analysis was performed with the Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Coefficient for the reliability. It was found that the scales used in the test were consistent. According to the typical game, people are more empathetic towards those in need and offer 6667 TL rather than 4264 TL. However, when a question of reliability is raised, 4658 TL is offered regardless of need. The study also found that women made higher offers to people in need than men. There was no statistical difference between the bids when the age range and graduation level differed. The findings show that the neoclassical economics concept of homo economicus, which seeks to maximize utility, is not valid in real life.

Keywords

• Ultimatum game
• Reliability
• Sharing
• Equity
• Altruism

References

1. Akerlof, George. A. (1970). The Market for Lemons: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488- 500.
2. Ankarloo, D. (2002). New Institutional Economics and Economic History. Capital & Class, 26(3), 9-36.
3. Ardalan, K. (2018). Behavioral Attitudes toward Current Economic Events: A Lesson from Neuroeconomics. Business Economics, 53(4), 202-208.
4. Bailey, P. E., Ruffman, T., & Rendell, P. G. (2013). Age-related Differences in Social Economic Decision Making: The Ultimatum Game. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68(3), 356-363.
5. Boyacı, İ., & Sultan, T. (2016). Experimental Evidence on Dictator And Ultimatum Games from Turkish and Pakistani Students. Istanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 15(29), 319.
6. Camerer, C. F. (2011). Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton University Press.
7. Cevizli, İ., & Bilen, M. (2021). Duyguların Rasyonel İktisadi Kararlarımız Üzerindeki Etkisi. İnsan ve Toplum, 11(2), 19-46.
8. Chen, T., Gozgor, G., & Koo, C. K. (2021). Pandemics and Income Inequality: What Do the Data Tell for the Globalization Era?. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, 674729.

9. Cimpeanu, T., Perret, C., & Han, T. A. (2021). Cost-efficient Interventions for Promoting Fairness in the Ultimatum Game. Knowledge-Based Systems, 233, 107545.
10. Çetin, T. (2012). Yeni Kurumsal İktisat. Istanbul Journal of Sociological Studies, 45, 43-73.
11. Demiral, E. E., & Mollerstrom, J. (2020). The Entitlement Effect in the Ultimatum Game–Does it even Exist?. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 175, 341-352.
12. Demirci, E., & Palancı, O. (2019). Ulusal Yazında Oyun Teorisi Üzerine Genişletilmiş Bir Literatür Taraması. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(29), 530-549.
13. Dilek, S., & Kesgingöz, H. (2018). Paylaşmak Güzeldir: Bir Ültimatom Oyunu Uygulaması. BMIJ, 6(4), 822-834.
14. Dilek, S., & Yıldırım, R. (2023). Gender Differences in Wage Negotiations: An Ultimatum Game Experiment. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(1), 195-210.
15. Eisenkopf, G., Fischbacher, U., & Föllmi-Heusi, F. (2013). Unequal Opportunities and Distributive Justice. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, 51-61.
16. Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (2006). The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism–Experimental Evidence and New Theories. Handbook of the Economics of Giving, Altruism and Reciprocity, 1, 615-691.
17. Fehr, E., Goette, L., & Zehnder, C. (2009). A Behavioral Account of the Labor Market: The Role of Fairness Concerns. Annu. Rev. Econ., 1(1), 355-384.
18. Foss, N J., & Klein, P. G. (2010). Critiques of Transaction Cost Economics: An Overview. The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics. ed. Peter G. Klein, Michael E. Sykuta. Edward Elgar Publishing. Chapter: 25.
19. García-Gallego, A., Georgantzís, N., & Jaramillo-Gutiérrez, A. (2012). Gender Differences in Ultimatum Games: Despite Rather Than Due to Risk Attitudes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(1), 42-49.
20. Gül, F., & Pesendorfer, W. (2005). The Case for Mindless Economics. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.444.1452&rep=rep1&t ype=pdf – Access Date: 12.04.2022
21. Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An Experimental Analysis of Ultimatum Bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 367-388.
22. Hatipoğlu, Y. Z. (2021). Metodolojik Bireye Bir Eleştiri; Özgecilik Kavramı ve Ültimatom Oyunu Uygulaması. İnsan & Toplum, 11(3), 139-178.
23. Heilman, R. M., & Kusev, P. (2017). The Gender Pay Gap: Can Behavioral Economics Provide Useful Insights?. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 95.
24. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., ... & Tracer, D. (2005). "Economic man" in Cross-cultural Perspective: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-scale Societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(6), 795-815.
25. Kenning, P., & Plassmann, H. (2005). NeuroEconomics: An Overview from an Economic Perspective. Brain Research Bulletin, 67(5), 343-354.
26. Kırış, Ş., & Dilek, S. (2021). Examination of the Relationship Between Muslim Piety Typologies and Altruism: An Ultimatum and Dictator Game Application. Itobiad: Journal of the Human & Social Science Researches, 10(2), 1470-1492.
27. Loewenstein, G., Rick, S., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). Neuroeconomics. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59, 647-672.
28. Mako, C., & Mitchell, B. (2013). Knowledge Economy and Innovation: An European Comparative Perspective. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics, 1(2), 7-35.
29. Morin, R. A., & Suarez, A. F. (1983). Risk Aversion Revisited. The Journal of Finance, 38(4), 1201-1216.
30. Nguyen, C. M., Koenigs, M., Yamada, T. H., Teo, S. H., Cavanaugh, J. E., Tranel, D., & Denburg, N. L. (2011). Trustworthiness and Negative Affect Predict Economic Decision Making. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(6), 748-759.
31. North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Park, G., VanOyen-Witvliet, C., Barraza, J. A., & Marsh, B. U. (2021). The Benefit of Gratitude: Trait Gratitude is Associated with Effective Economic Decision-making in the Ultimatum Game. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 590132.
33. Pollak, R. A. (1985). A Transaction Cost Approach to Families and Households. Journal of Economic Literature, 23(2), 581-608.
34. Riley Jr, W. B., & Chow, K. V. (1992). Asset Allocation and Individual Risk Aversion. Financial Analysts Journal, 48(6), 32-37.
35. Simon, H. (1957). A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Models of Man, Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting, 6(1), 241-260.
36. Sutter, M. (2007). Outcomes versus Intentions: On the Nature of Fair Behavior and Its Development with Age. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(1), 69-78.
37. Taber, K. S. (2018). The Use of Cronbach's Alpha when Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273-1296.
38. Tabibnia, G., Satpute, A. B., & Lieberman, M. D. (2008). The Sunny Side of Fairness. Psychol. Sci. 19, 339–347.
39. Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction-Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233-261.
40. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.
41. Williamson, O. E. (1990). A Comparison of Alternative Approaches to Economic Organization. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 146(1), 61-71.