Back to overview

Theoretical Models of Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game: Fairness vs. Reason

Type of publication Peer-reviewed
Publikationsform Contribution to book (peer-reviewed)
Publication date 2016
Author Guy Tatiana V., Kárný Miroslav, Lintas Alessandra, Villa Alessandro E.P.,
Project NeurEcA: Does working memory training affect decision making? A NeuroEconomic study of ADHD adults and healthy controls
Show all

Contribution to book (peer-reviewed)

Book Advances in Cognitive Neurodynamics (V)
Editor , Wang Rubin
Publisher Springer, Singapore
Page(s) 185 - 191
ISBN 978-981-10-0205-2
Title of proceedings Advances in Cognitive Neurodynamics (V)
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-0207-6_26

Open Access

Type of Open Access Repository (Green Open Access)


According to game theory, a human subject playing the ultimatum game should choose more for oneself and offer the least amount possible for co-players (assumption of selfish rationality) (Rubinstein in J Econ Behav Organ 3(4):367–388, [1]). However, economy, sociology and neurology communities repeatedly claim non-rationality of the human behaviour (Werner et al. in Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, [2]), following the observation that responders reject offers they find too low and proposers often offer more than the smallest amount, thus suggesting that humans’ behaviour is significantly influenced by social norms. We also assume human rationality, but our model describes a human responder via decision process with a reward function respecting fairness as much as the economic profit. This model is positively tested against a set of original experimental data, thus providing an insight into human’s motivation as a social being.