Economics in social interactions works in agreement and disagreement. One person may trade a good for other through bargain or transactions. This, in plain sight, appears “fair”. However, this simple concept varies greatly depending on the background and culture of the person making the transactions. One person may view this one good as worth ten dollars while the other person may view the same good as worth twenty dollars. This varying perspective illustrates how our own judgements arise from how we view our money or the transactions. Similar to this basic economic cooperation, the variation of the agreement on deal is illustrated in the experiments that use the “Ultimatum Game”. By comparing variety of cultures and societies through the Ultimatum
…show more content…
The game consists of two anonymous players bargaining over splitting up certain amount of money. One person is the proposer who offers a portion of the sum to the other person and the other person is the responder who either accepts or rejects the offer. If the responder rejects the offer, both of them end up with no money while if the responder accepts, the sum of money will be allocated accordingly to the initial offer. This experiment was conducted throughout multiple cultures such as United States to more indigenous cultures such as Machinegun and Hadza. Those were done to understand the economic behaviors among the variety of cultures and …show more content…
However, most of this contemplation is solved by aligning the offer closer to fifty-fifty. This illustrates the stronger relationship of individualism and rationality present in advanced societies than the collective culture. When examining the individual’s behavior, not only was the conflict of gain and share the main correlation of the decisions but also their individual personality. One experiment in advanced society measured personality of the contestants before being paired with one another for the Ultimatum Game through quick 16 personalities adjective checklist. Those were then categorized to five dimensions: self-control, emotional stability, independence, tough mindedness, and extraversion. As one would expect, the tough mindedness and independent personality proposer demanded higher than the tender-minded and dependent proposer. This reveals that people don’t solely consider others’ interests strategically to maximize their payoff. The proposers may mold the strategic perception based on the sharpness of their personality. For the responders, the ones who tend to have combination of low emotional stability and high extraversion or high emotional stability and low extraversion tended to reject the offers more often than other responders. The unstable extraverts and stable introverts
The game consists of two anonymous players bargaining over splitting up certain amount of money. One person is the proposer who offers a portion of the sum to the other person and the other person is the responder who either accepts or rejects the offer. If the responder rejects the offer, both of them end up with no money while if the responder accepts, the sum of money will be allocated accordingly to the initial offer. This experiment was conducted throughout multiple cultures such as United States to more indigenous cultures such as Machinegun and Hadza. Those were done to understand the economic behaviors among the variety of cultures and …show more content…
However, most of this contemplation is solved by aligning the offer closer to fifty-fifty. This illustrates the stronger relationship of individualism and rationality present in advanced societies than the collective culture. When examining the individual’s behavior, not only was the conflict of gain and share the main correlation of the decisions but also their individual personality. One experiment in advanced society measured personality of the contestants before being paired with one another for the Ultimatum Game through quick 16 personalities adjective checklist. Those were then categorized to five dimensions: self-control, emotional stability, independence, tough mindedness, and extraversion. As one would expect, the tough mindedness and independent personality proposer demanded higher than the tender-minded and dependent proposer. This reveals that people don’t solely consider others’ interests strategically to maximize their payoff. The proposers may mold the strategic perception based on the sharpness of their personality. For the responders, the ones who tend to have combination of low emotional stability and high extraversion or high emotional stability and low extraversion tended to reject the offers more often than other responders. The unstable extraverts and stable introverts