Cognitive reflection predicts the acceptance of unfair ultimatum game offers

Abstract

In the ultimatum game, one player proposes a split of money between him- or herself and another player, who can accept the offer (and both players keep the allocated money) or reject the offer (and both players get nothing). The present study examined predictors of accepting unfair ultimatum offers. In Study 1, 184 participants responded to an unfair ultimatum offer, completed a measure of cognitive reflection, and completed a self-report measure of rational and experiential thinking. Slightly more than half of the participants (54.3%) accepted the unfair offer, and cognitive reflection was positively correlated with accepting unfair offers. The rational and experiential thinking scales were not significantly correlated with ultimatum decisions. In Study 2, 306 participants responded to 20 ultimatum offers that varied in fairness and completed an expanded measure of cognitive reflection. Performance on the cognitive reflection measure predicted the number of ultimatum offers accepted. These results suggest that rejecting ultimatum offers is related to intuitive, heuristic-based thinking, whereas accepting offers is related to deliberate, analytic-based thinking.

'Rationality' enhancement: The effect of anodal tDCS over the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex among ultimatum game responders

“…As mentioned above, the current work provides additional support to the line of research suggesting that social preferences are driven by automatic emotional processes, and that cognitive control, in the form of emotion regulation processes, is required to ensure 'rational', self-interested outcomes (Achtziger et al, 2016;Calvillo & Burgeno, 2015;Cappelletti et al, 2011;De Neys et al, 2011;Grecucci et al, 2013;Halali et al, 2014;Halali et al, 2013;Van't Wout et al, 2010). Yet, it is important to note that, in contrast to this view, in recent years behavioral (Achtziger et al, 2015(Achtziger et al, , 2018Halali et al, 2013;Katzir et al, 2021), evolutionary (Jensen et al, 2007), anddevelopmental (Bereby-Meyer &Fiks, 2013;Kogut, 2012) evidence has also accumulated that insinuates an (allegedly) opposite notion, according to which egoistic tendencies are the primary dominant responses that need to be overridden by cognitive-control processes in order to foster social considerations such as fairness and reciprocity.…”

Metacognition modulates the relation between maternal severity of psychopathological symptoms and reported child symptoms.

“…As mentioned above, here we introduce a novel finding by showing that despite the association between mental health symptoms and automatic reasoning, high levels of parental metacognition buffer the negative effects of mental health problems on parental attributions and representations about their children. Also, it adds to the literature that suggests that individual characteristics are associated with the tendency to engage in specific types of reasoning (Pennycook & Rand, 2019;Calvillo & Burgeno, 2015). Metacognition may be one of the individual characteristics underlying reasoning styles in parents.…”

How Do Politicians Bargain? Evidence from Ultimatum Games with Legislators in Five Countries

“…These patterns—allocating significant proportions to recipients and rejections of low offers—are remarkably consistent across countries, societies, and contexts (Alvard 2004; Henrich et al 2004; Oosterbeek, Sloof, and Van De Kuilen 2004). They have been explained by a series of mutually nonexclusive interpretations: these include revenge (Nowak, Page, and Sigmund 2000), enforcement of fairness expectations and punishment in face of cooperative norm violation (Bolton and Zwick 1995; Mendoza, Lane, and Amodio 2014; Sanfey 2009), altruism (Oosterbeek, Sloof, and Van De Kuilen 2004), heuristic thinking (Calvillo and Burgeno 2015), empathy and perspective taking (Zak, Stanton, and Ahmadi 2007), reputation building and strategic reasoning (Hibbing and Alford 2004; Hoffman et al 1994), response to structural market integration levels (Henrich et al 2001), and a reflection of societal and situational power relations (Kertzer and Rathbun 2015; Solnick and Schweitzer 1999).…”