For many years, theoretical economists characterized humans as rational beings relentlessly benton maximizing purely selfish reward. Results of an experimental economics study appear to contradict this view, however. In the "Ultimatum Game," two subjects, who cannot exchange information, are placed in separate rooms. One is randomly chosen to propose how a sum of money, known to both, should be shared between them; only one offer, which must be accepted or rejected without negotiation, is allowed.

If, in fact, people are selfish and rational, then the proposer should offer the smallest possible share, while the responder should accept any offer, no matter how small: after all, even one dollar is better than nothing. In numerous trials, however, two-thirds of the offers made were between 40 and 50 percent; only 4 percent were less than 20 percent. Among responders, more than half who were offered less than 20 percent rejected the offer. Behavior in the game did not appreciably depend on the players' sex, age, or education. Nor did the amount of money involved play a significant role: for instance, in trials of the game that were conducted in Indonesia, the sum to be shared was as much as three times the subjects' average monthly income, and still responders refused offers that they deemed too small.

The passage implies that the results of the Ultimatum Game undermine theoretical economists' characterization of human beings by

demonstrating that most people are inclined to try to maximize their own advantage whenever possible

indicating that people who do not have the option of negotiating might behave more generously than do those who have the option of negotiating

illustrating how people's economic behavior depends to some extent on how large a sum of money is involved

showing that most people instinctively place their own economic self-interest ahead of the interest of strangers

suggesting that people's economic behavior might in part be motivated by factors other than selfishness


登录注册 后可以参加讨论