Skip to main content
Log in

EVOLUTION AND ULTIMATUM BARGAINING

  • Published:
Theory and Decision Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Empirical research has discovered that experimental subjects in ultimatum bargaining situations generally fail to play the decision-theoretic optimum strategy, and instead play something between that strategy and a fair split. In evolutionary dynamics, fair division and nearly fair division strategies often go to fixation and weakly dominated strategies can do quite well. Computer simulations were done using three different ultimatum bargaining games as determinates of fitness. (1) No tendency toward the elimination of weakly dominated strategies was observed, with or without mutation. (2) Strategies making fair demands had sizable basins of attraction. (3) In a system where five different demands can be made, demands closest to (approximately) 91% had the largest basins of attraction. (4) If the strategies have thresholds for acceptable demands, rather than individuated responses to each demand, the apparent optimum demand may be quite low: 64% for one set of trials.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Axelrod, R. and Hamilton, William D.: 1981, ‘The Evolution of Cooperation’, Science 211, 1390–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkow, Jerome H., Cosmides, Leda and Tooby, John: 1992, The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binmore, Kenneth G., Gale, John and Samuelson, Larry: 1993, ‘Learning to be Imperfect: the ultimatum game’, Working paper 9325 Social Systems Research Institute, University of Wisconsin.

  • Boylan, Richard T.: 1994, ‘Evolutionary Equilibria Resistant to Mutation’, Games and Economic Behavior 7, 10–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Güth, W., Schmittberger, R. and Schwarze, B.:1982, ‘An Experimental Analysis of Ultimatum Bargaining’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3, 367–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofbauer, Josef and Sigmund, Karl: 1988, The Theory of Evolution and Dynamical Systems, Cambridge University Press.

  • Maynard Smith, John and Price, George R.: 1973, ‘The Logic of Animal Conflicts’, Nature 246, 15–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, A., Prasnikar, V., Okuno-Fujiwara, M. and Zamir, S.: 1991, ‘Bargaining and Market Behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh, and Tokyo: An Experimental Study’, American Economic Review 81, 1068–1095.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, Peter, and Sigmund, Karl: 1983, “Replicator Dynamics”, Journal of Theoretical Biology 100, 533–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms, B.: 1994, ‘Evolution of an Anomoly’, Technical Report MBS 94–22, Institute for Mathematical Behavioral Sciences, University of California, Irvine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler, R., 1988, ‘Anomolies: The Ultimatum Game’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 2, 195–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Damme, Eric: 1991, Stability and Perfection of Nash Equilibria, 2nd. Edition, Springer-Verlag.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harms, W. EVOLUTION AND ULTIMATUM BARGAINING. Theory and Decision 42, 147–175 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004919326873

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004919326873

Navigation