4.8 Article

Chimpanzees play the ultimatum game

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1220806110

Keywords

inequity aversion; equality; reciprocity; sharing; behavioral economics

Funding

  1. Living Links Center
  2. Emory's College of Arts and Sciences
  3. Base Grant of the National Center for Research Resources [P51RR165]
  4. Office of Research Infrastructure Programs [OD P51OD11132]
  5. National Science Foundation (NSF) Human and Social Dynamics Grants [SES 0729244, NSF SES 1123897]
  6. NSF CAREER Award [SES 0847351]
  7. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  8. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences [0847351, 1123825] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  9. Divn Of Social and Economic Sciences
  10. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [1123897] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Is the sense of fairness uniquely human? Human reactions to reward division are often studied by means of the ultimatum game, in which both partners need to agree on a distribution for both to receive rewards. Humans typically offer generous portions of the reward to their partner, a tendency our close primate relatives have thus far failed to show in experiments. Here we tested chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and human children on a modified ultimatum game. One individual chose between two tokens that, with their partner's cooperation, could be exchanged for rewards. One token offered equal rewards to both players, whereas the other token favored the chooser. Both apes and children responded like humans typically do. If their partner's cooperation was required, they split the rewards equally. However, with passive partners-a situation akin to the so-called dictator game-they preferred the selfish option. Thus, humans and chimpanzees show similar preferences regarding reward division, suggesting a long evolutionary history to the human sense of fairness.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available