2007-10-18

黑猩猩的通牒賽局


在United Press上面看到這則新聞

個體經濟學中有種知名賽局叫做「通牒賽局」(Ultimatum game)。
在人都是理性而自私的假設下,讓兩個人分錢。一個人決定錢的分配比例,另一個人只能選擇接受還是不接受。接受的話,兩個人都獲利,拒絕的話,則金額歸零,雙輸。

經濟學家推論,因為兩個參與者都是理性而自私的,並且知道這個遊戲只玩一回合,沒必要共謀。所以最可能的結果是,分配者只分一小撮金額給對方,而對方也必然會接受。(分配者知道對方只會接受,所以不用分給他太多;而選擇方則無論如何都是接受比不接受好)

但是事實上呢?

早先有些心理學家讓受試者玩通牒遊戲,結果發現無論學歷、人種、性別、年齡的差異,平均的分配比率,竟然都是接近五五對分。如果分配比率過於懸殊,選擇方會選擇不接受,乾脆拉倒。
唯有一組例外,那就是經濟系的學生。XD

up報導今年十月五號的Science期刊上面有篇文章,是德國研究員讓黑猩猩玩通牒賽局,結果發現,黑猩猩傾向分較少給對方,而選擇方則是無論如何都會接受。反而跟經濟學的推論比較接近。

該怎麼解釋這個結果呢?

或許讓人類如此優越的特性,根本就不是追求效率的「本能」,而是追求公平、和諧的特質?

2 意見:

Vibes 提到...

My humble point:

In the long history of human evolution only tribes which picked 50/50 or nothing survived the elimination.

Imagine 2 neighbouring tribes enegaed in prolonged interaction. The tribe that took less than 50% (that it is better than nothing) will evntually be swindled or bullied out of independence. They could be eliminated or become slaves.

The chimps that took something, as it's better than nothing, may just be respecting the 1st chimp as the offerer of kindness, who shares it's spoil, who naturally should have more.

There is another point, that if the 2nd chimp inststed on 50%, the 1st chimp may not offer anything again!

The econ students were not thinking long term. We should perhaps track their career later on, to see how they'd react in longer term scenarios.

Kuo-Ting Tsai 提到...

您好,我是做相關主題的研究生。偶然間發現你在此文章中的圖片,相當符合我想要找的圖片,我可以複製這張圖片到我將在國際會議中報告的PPT中嗎?先向您說聲謝謝。