Social Preference, Incomplete Information, and the Evolution of Ultimatum Game in the Small World Networks: An Agent-Based Approach

Certain social preference models have been proposed to explain fairness behavior in experimental games. Existing bodies of research on evolutionary games, however, explain the evolution of fairness merely through the self-interest agents. This paper attempts to analyze the ultimatum game's evolution on complex networks when a number of agents display social preference. Agents' social preference is modeled in three forms: fairness consideration or maintaining a minimum acceptable money level, inequality aversion, and social welfare preference. Different from other spatial ultimatum game models, the model in this study assumes that agents have incomplete information on other agents' strategies, so the agents need to learn and develop their own strategies in this unknown environment. Genetic Algorithm Learning Classifier System algorithm is employed to address the agents' learning issue. Simulation results reveal that raising the minimum acceptable level or including fairness consideration in a game does not always promote fairness level in ultimatum games in a complex network. If the minimum acceptable money level is high and not all agents possess a social preference, the fairness level attained may be considerably lower. However, the inequality aversion social preference has negligible effect on the results of evolutionary ultimatum games in a complex network. Social welfare preference promotes the fairness level in the ultimatum game. This paper demonstrates that agents' social preference is an important factor in the spatial ultimatum game, and different social preferences create different effects on fairness emergence in the spatial ultimatum game.

[1]  D. Kahneman,et al.  CHAPTER EIGHT. Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market , 2004 .

[2]  G. Szabó,et al.  Evolutionary games on graphs , 2006, cond-mat/0607344.

[3]  John A. List,et al.  Learning to Accept in Ultimatum Games: Evidence from an Experimental Design that Generates Low Offers , 2000 .

[4]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[5]  J. Keith Murnighan,et al.  An experimental investigation of ultimatum games: information, fairness, expectations, and lowest acceptable offers , 1995 .

[6]  Martin A. Nowak,et al.  Evolutionary dynamics on graphs , 2005, Nature.

[7]  A. Rubinstein Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model , 1982 .

[8]  Rachel Croson,et al.  Information in ultimatum games: An experimental study , 1996 .

[9]  Armin Falk,et al.  A Theory of Reciprocity , 2001, Games Econ. Behav..

[10]  W. Güth,et al.  An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining , 1982 .

[11]  S. Huck Responder behavior in ultimatum offer games with incomplete information , 1999 .

[12]  S. Gächter Behavioral Game Theory , 2008, Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science.

[13]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[14]  Anders U. Poulsen,et al.  Information and Endogenous First Mover Advantages in the Ultimatum Game , 2007 .

[15]  M. Kuperman,et al.  The effect of the topology on the spatial ultimatum game , 2007, 0711.2165.

[16]  M. Nowak,et al.  The spatial ultimatum game , 2000, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[17]  Werner Güth,et al.  Bargaining Outside the Lab a Newspaper Experiment of a Three-Person Ultimatum Game , 2005 .

[18]  Fernando Redondo Game Theory and Economics , 2001 .

[19]  Gary E. Bolton,et al.  Anonymity versus Punishment in Ultimatum Bargaining , 1995 .

[20]  Kevin McCabe,et al.  On expectations and the monetary stakes in ultimatum games , 1996 .

[21]  Thomas Riechmann Another Paper on Ultimatum Games.This Time: Agent Based Simulations , 2001 .

[22]  Gary E. Bolton,et al.  ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition , 2000 .

[23]  E. Fehr A Theory of Fairness, Competition and Cooperation , 1998 .

[24]  T. Killingback,et al.  Spatial Ultimatum Games, collaborations and the evolution of fairness , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[25]  H. Oosterbeek,et al.  Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis , 2001 .

[26]  M. Rabin Published by: American , 2022 .

[27]  John H. Miller,et al.  NOTES AND COMMENTS GIVING ACCORDING TO GARP: AN EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF THE CONSISTENCY OF PREFERENCES FOR ALTRUISM , 2002 .

[28]  L. Cameron,et al.  Raising the Stakes in the Ultimatum Game: Experimental Evidence From Indonesia , 1999 .