This is a Sarah Brosnan’s research that I’ve got from a random website. She is from Georgia State University. If you don’t know who is she, she got her Ph.D., Emory University in 2004. Now she is an Assistant Professor and Member, Social/Cognitive Program
Member, NBN Program.

Here is the article:

Since its invention 25 years ago, the “Ultimatum Game” has become a workhorse of behavioral economics. The game (abbreviated UG) is designed to examine peoples’ decisions about resource allocation in a very simple bargaining situation. The first person, labeled the proposer, receives a sum of money to divide between herself and a partner (typically anonymous). The second person, or responder, can either accept the division, in which case both will be rewarded as the proposer indicated, or refuse the division, in which case neither player receives any money.

This game has heavily influenced economists’ views of rational decision-making. The most “rational” action is for the proposer to offer the least amount allowable (usually $1 or the equivalent) and for the responder to accept it. This strategy offers an absolute gain to both individuals. According to economic theory, this arrangement should mean everyone is happy.

Yet the game rarely goes this way in practice. Although social and situational factors can affect offers, in most studies the median offer by the proposer is 50 percent (the average is about 40 percent) and responders frequently refuse offers of lesser amounts. In other words, humans - at least in the role of responder - care about relative gains (for example, their gains as compared to their partner) as much or more than absolute gains. And proposers apparently anticipate this behavior, leading them to make offers that are fair enough to be accepted.

Want to read more?
Click here and I’m sure you will like it.