How Does Being Trusted Affect Sharing? Findings from the Ultimatum Game

IF 0.5 Q4 ECONOMICS
Yıldırım Beyazıt ÇİÇEN
{"title":"How Does Being Trusted Affect Sharing? Findings from the Ultimatum Game","authors":"Yıldırım Beyazıt ÇİÇEN","doi":"10.21121/eab.1261671","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Individual personalities, situational factors, and social interactions impact the fair sharing of justice. This study was conducted on 412 adults and investigated how behaviors were shaped in the Ultimatum Game. Therefore, three cases were determined, and the bidder was instructed to divide 10 thousand TL first in the typical game. Afterward, it was said that the other person was in need, and the bid was requested to be renewed. At the last stage, bids were received if there was any doubt about the needy. Consistency analysis was performed with the Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Coefficient for the reliability. It was found that the scales used in the test were consistent. According to the typical game, people are more empathetic towards those in need and offer 6667 TL rather than 4264 TL. However, when a question of reliability is raised, 4658 TL is offered regardless of need. The study also found that women made higher offers to people in need than men. There was no statistical difference between the bids when the age range and graduation level differed. The findings show that the neoclassical economics concept of homo economicus, which seeks to maximize utility, is not valid in real life.","PeriodicalId":43307,"journal":{"name":"EGE ACADEMIC REVIEW","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EGE ACADEMIC REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.1261671","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Individual personalities, situational factors, and social interactions impact the fair sharing of justice. This study was conducted on 412 adults and investigated how behaviors were shaped in the Ultimatum Game. Therefore, three cases were determined, and the bidder was instructed to divide 10 thousand TL first in the typical game. Afterward, it was said that the other person was in need, and the bid was requested to be renewed. At the last stage, bids were received if there was any doubt about the needy. Consistency analysis was performed with the Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Coefficient for the reliability. It was found that the scales used in the test were consistent. According to the typical game, people are more empathetic towards those in need and offer 6667 TL rather than 4264 TL. However, when a question of reliability is raised, 4658 TL is offered regardless of need. The study also found that women made higher offers to people in need than men. There was no statistical difference between the bids when the age range and graduation level differed. The findings show that the neoclassical economics concept of homo economicus, which seeks to maximize utility, is not valid in real life.
被信任如何影响分享?最后通牒博弈的结果
个体个性、情境因素和社会互动都会影响正义的公平分享。这项研究对412名成年人进行了调查,调查了最后通牒游戏中行为是如何形成的。因此,确定了三种情况,并要求竞标者在典型博弈中先分1万TL。后来,有人说另一个人需要帮助,于是要求重新竞标。在最后阶段,如果对有需要的人有任何疑问,就接受投标。采用Cronbach’s Alpha信度系数对信度进行一致性分析。结果发现,测试中使用的量表是一致的。根据典型的博弈,人们对有需要的人更有同理心,提供6667 TL而不是4264 TL。然而,当提出可靠性问题时,无论需要与否,都会提供4658 TL。研究还发现,女性给有需要的人开出的条件比男性高。年龄范围和毕业水平不同时,投标结果无统计学差异。研究结果表明,新古典经济学中追求效用最大化的经济人概念在现实生活中并不成立。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
EGE ACADEMIC REVIEW
EGE ACADEMIC REVIEW ECONOMICS-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信