The Right Cognition Effect in Bargaining Game Decision-making

CHEN Jing; WANG Pu-HuaPan; LI Hong

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2012, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (3) : 647-653.

Jing CHEN¹,Hua-yan HUANGFU

Author information +

History +

Abstract

The cognition factor plays a significant role in individual decision-making, which have been recognized by a majority of psychologists. Some economics and psychology research described a phenomenon that when players had distinct right in bargaining game, they manifested various strategies and decision behavior. But there was little of investigator of mental mechanism and support of experiment data for this phenomenon. In Nash bargaining game, the two players had interdependent relations and identical rights. However, the two players in ultimatum game had not only interdependent relations but also dissimilar rights. In the ultimatum game, the proposer and the responder were both faced with cognition issue understanding of the rights of himself and the other. Based on the analysis of game task and theory, the author proposed the right cognition effect was a phenomenon in bargaining game that the strategic choice and decision behavior of decision maker were influenced, because of his/her cognition degree about his/her right and another players’ right. The Nash bargaining game (NG) and the ultimatum game (UG) were chosen to investigate existence of the right cognition effect. 180 children and 60 university students, averagely aged 6, 9, 12 and 20 participated in the experiment. In NG, they were requested to individually make a distribution number from 10 tokens to an anonymous peer. In UG, they made an offer from 10 tokens to another anonymous peer. All the tokens they got in the game would exchange with their favorite award, including candy, stationery or cash. Their NG scores were calculated by subtracting the distribution number from 10. Their UG scores were their offers. Every participant played NG and UG five times. After each game, they answered some questions about their strategies. In the end, participants exchanged their gotten tokens for favorite rewards. Paired-Samples T Test showed that each child’s group made significantly different decision- making behaviors between NG and UG. The result of university students was not statistical significance, but a minority of university students did the different decision-making. This proved the existence of the right cognition effect. We supposed it is an expression of ecological rationality. This cognition effect reflected that the individual made the advantageous decision-making behavior by use the dominant information of environment, which may give an explanation of reasons for irrationality decision-making. The subjects affected by the right cognition effect decreased with age. With the increase of age, the number of person who was affected by the right cognition effect showed a gradual downward trend. This was not only the embodiment of level of self-centered and theory of mind, but also the embodiment of children’s development process of two decision-making systems. In both games, some people showed cooperation and fair behavior. The person who used fair strategy was not under the right cognition effect influence. These findings suggested that the right cognition effect existed in the 6 to 12 year-old children and university students. With the advance of age, the number of person who was affected by the right cognition effect showed a gradual downward trend. But it still accounted for more than half of the overall in children. In the right cognition effect, the understanding of the distribution right is superior to the understanding of the veto power in children.

Key words

bargaining / right cognition effect / children / Ultimatum game / Nash bargaining game

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Jing CHEN Hua-yan HUANGFU. The Right Cognition Effect in Bargaining Game Decision-making[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2012, 35(3): 647-653

References

参考文献蔡志明. (1999). 议价行为的博弈理论与博弈实验研究. 华东师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）(6), 68-74. 陈单枝, & 朱莉琪. (2005). 儿童的决策行为. 心理科学进展, 13(5), 606-613. 陈璟. (2008). 儿童静态博弈决策的发展及心理成分研究. 博士学位论文. 西南大学. 方富熹, 方格, 凯勒, M., & 埃德斯坦, W. (2002). 东西方儿童对友谊关系中的道德推理发展的跨文化研究. 心理学报, 34(1), 67-73. 皇甫刚, 朱莉琪, 戴航, & 张岗英. (2007). 影响博弈结果的方法效应研究. 心理与行为研究, 5(4), 305-308. 李浩然, & 杨治良. (2009). 认知偏向研究的进化心理学视角. 心理科学, 32(2), 384-387. 李纾, 李岩梅, & 刘长江. (2007). 认知、动机、情感因素对谈判行为的影响. 心理科学进展, 15(3), 511-517. 穆岩, & 苏彦捷. (2005). 10～12岁儿童的同伴接纳类型与社交策略. 心理发展与教育, 21(2), 24-29. 卿志琼. (2005). 认知偏差与理性选择——基于"最后通牒博弈"实验的认知博弈. 南开经济研究(1), 15-22. 苏彦捷, & 穆岩. (2004). 公平——精神道德观念还是互利合作机制？. 心理学探新, 23(3), 19-26. 孙彦, 李纾, & 殷晓莉. (2007). 决策与推理的双系统——启发式系统和分析系统. 心理科学进展, 15(5), 721-845. 姚国庆. (2003). 博弈论 . 上海: 南开大学出版社. 于静, 朱莉琪. (2010). 儿童公平行为的发展——来自博弈实验的证据. 心理科学进展, 18(7), 1182-1188. 朱莉琪, 皇甫刚, Keller, M., 牟毅, & 陈单枝. (2008). 从博弈游戏看儿童经济决策行为的发展. 心理学报, 40(4), 402-408. Blount, S. (1995). When social outcomes are not fair: the effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 63(2), 131-144. Bosman, R., Sonnemans, J., & Zeelenberg, M. (2001). Emotions, rejections, and cooling off in the Ultimatum game.Unpublished*manuscript, University of Amsterdam. Camerer, C., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Anomalies: ultimatums, dictators and manners. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 209-219. Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P. (2001). Chivalry and solidarity in Ultimatum game. Economic Inquiry, 39(2), 171-188. Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6(3), 347-369. Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657-669. Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Adaptive thinking—rationality in the real world . New York: Oxford university Press. Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: the recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109(1), 75-90. Güro?lu, B., Vanden Bos, W., & Crone, E. (2009). Fairness considerations: increasing understanding of intentionality during adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104(4), 398-409. Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 367-388. Harbaugh, W. T., Krause, K., & Liday, S. J. (2002). Bargaining by children.Unpublished*manuscript, University of Oregon Economics Working Paper. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K. A., & Smith, V. L. (1996). On expectations and the monetary stakes in Ultimatum games. International Journal of Game Theory, 25(3), 289-301. Hoffman, E., McCabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. (1994). Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7(3), 346-380. Kagel, J. H., Kim, C., & Moser, D. (1996). Fairness in Ultimatum games with asymmetric information and asymmetric payoffs. Games and Economic Behavior, 13(1), 100-110. Kirchsteiger, G. (1994). The role of envy in Ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 25(3), 373-389. Klaczynski, P. A. (2001). Analytic and heuristic processing influences on adolescent reasoning and decision-making. Child development, 72(3), 844-861. Krause, K., & Harbaugh, W. T. (1999). Economic experiments that you can perform at home on your children.Unpublished*manuscript, University of Oregon Department of Economics Working Paper. Larrick, R. P., & Blount, S. (1997). The claiming effect: why players are more generous in social dilemmas than in Ultimatum games. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 810-825. Murnighan, J. K., & Saxon, M. S. (1998). Ultimatum bargaining by children and adults. Journal of Economic Psychology, 19, 415-445. Nash, J. (1953). Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 128-140. Pillutla, M. M., & Murnighan, J. K. (1996). Unfairness, anger, and spite: emotional rejections of ultimatum offers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Peocesses, 68(3), 208-224. Sally, D., & Hill, E. (2006). The development of interpersonal strategy: autism, theory-of-mind, cooperation and fairness. Journal of Economic Psychology, 27, 73-97. Strauba, P. G., & Murnighan, J. K. (1995). An experimental investigation of ultimatums complete information, fairness, expectations, and lowest acceptable offers. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 27(3), 345-364. Van Dijk, E., & Vermunt, R. (2000). Strategy and fairness in social decision making: sometimes it pays to be powerless. Journal of experimental social psychology, 36(1), 1-25. Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25(2), 151-176.