The classic “ultimatum game” has one player decide how to split a pot of money, and another decide whether or not to accept it. New research shows that players are less willing to accept an unfair offer if the opponent is perceived as a direct, rather than indirect, competitor. (Photo credit: Rick, via flickr)
New research suggests our desire for fairness come not from altruism, but from a need to prevent local competitors from gaining an advantage.
Researchers used a variation of the classic ultimatum game, in which one player decides how to split a pot of money, and the other decides whether to accept it; a rejection means both parties get nothing.
The study showed that people were were less willing to accept unfair offers if their opponent was perceived as a direct, rather than indirect competitor, suggesting that the need to keep the local playing field level outweighs the benefit of receiving a small amount of a resource.
Original research paper published in the the Journal Biology Letters on May 20, 2014.
Names and affiliations of selected authors
