Source Study: Costly Punishment Across Human Societies (Henrich et al., 2006)
The 2006 research paper 'Costly Punishment Across Human Societies', authored by Joseph Henrich and a team of colleagues, was published in the journal Science. This study is the academic source for the experimental data presented in the ultimatum game comparison between Kenyan farmers and US students.
0
1
Tags
Library Science
Economics
Economy
Social Science
Empirical Science
Science
CORE Econ
Ch.4 Strategic interactions and social dilemmas - The Economy 2.0 Microeconomics @ CORE Econ
Introduction to Microeconomics Course
Related
Source Study: Costly Punishment Across Human Societies (Henrich et al., 2006)
In an economic experiment, a 'Proposer' offers to split a sum of money with a 'Responder'. The Responder can either accept the proposed split, in which case both get the money, or reject it, in which case neither person gets anything. When this experiment was conducted with two different groups, the results showed a significant difference: for a low offer (e.g., 20% of the total sum), a large majority of US students accepted the offer, whereas a large majority of Kenyan farmers rejected it. Which of the following statements best analyzes this outcome?
Evaluating Rationality in Economic Decisions
Designing a Community Grant Program
Interpreting Experimental Economic Data
In an economic game, a 'Proposer' offers a split of a sum of money to a 'Responder'. If the Responder accepts, they both get the money as proposed. If the Responder rejects, neither gets anything. Experimental data for a group of US students shows that 58% of them accept an offer of 10% of the total sum, while nearly 100% accept an offer of 30%.
Based on this data, a Proposer's strategy to maximize their own expected monetary payout would be to offer the students 10% of the sum.
In an economic experiment, a 'Proposer' offers a 'Responder' a portion of a total sum of money. The Responder can accept, and both parties get the proposed split, or reject, and neither party gets anything. The experiment was conducted with two distinct groups: US students and Kenyan farmers. Match each proposed offer level with the observed acceptance behavior of the Responders in the two groups.
In an economic experiment, a 'Proposer' offers a 'Responder' a share of a sum of money. If the Responder accepts, they both get the money as proposed; if they reject, neither gets anything. When this experiment was conducted with two groups, Kenyan farmers and US students, a key difference emerged. For an offer of 30% of the total sum, nearly all US students accepted, while almost half of the Kenyan farmers rejected it. This suggests that, compared to the US students, the Kenyan farmers placed a higher value on ____ when making their decision, even at the cost of receiving no money.
Strategic Offer Calculation in a Mixed Population
In an economic experiment, a 'Proposer' is given $10 and must offer a portion to a 'Responder'. If the Responder accepts the offer, the money is split as proposed. If the Responder rejects the offer, neither person receives any money. The Proposer knows they are interacting with a Responder from a group whose acceptance behavior has been previously studied, as shown below:
- An offer of $3 (30% of the total) is accepted 52% of the time.
- An offer of $4 (40% of the total) is accepted 95% of the time.
- An offer of $5 (50% of the total) is accepted 100% of the time.
Assuming the Proposer's sole goal is to maximize their own expected monetary payout, which of the following offers should they make?
Critiquing Interpretations of Economic Behavior
In an experiment, participants acting as 'Responders' could accept or reject a proposed split of a sum of money from a 'Proposer'. If the Responder rejects the offer, neither person gets anything. The results from two different groups, Kenyan farmers and US students, are summarized below:
- For an offer of 50% of the total sum, acceptance was nearly 100% in both groups.
- For an offer of 30%, nearly all students accepted, but almost half of the farmers rejected it.
- For an offer of 10%, a majority of students still accepted, while almost all farmers rejected it.
Based on these results, what is the most logical conclusion about the factors influencing the Responders' decisions?
Evaluating Rationality in an Economic Experiment
Applying Experimental Findings in an Economic Game
Interpreting Experimental Economic Data
In an economic experiment, two groups (Kenyan farmers and US students) acted as 'Responders' who could accept or reject a proposed split of a sum of money. If they rejected the offer, no one received any money. The results showed that for low offers (e.g., 10% of the total sum), farmers were far more likely to reject the offer than students. A valid interpretation of this outcome is that the farmers' group demonstrated a weaker understanding of the optimal strategy for maximizing their individual monetary gain in this specific scenario.
In an economic experiment, 'Responders' from two groups (Kenyan farmers and US students) could accept or reject a proposed split of a sum of money. If an offer was rejected, neither person received any money. Match each proposed offer level to the corresponding experimental outcome observed for the two groups.
In an economic experiment where 'Responders' could accept or reject a proposed split of money, the finding that Kenyan farmers rejected low offers much more frequently than US students suggests that the farmers placed a higher value on ____ than on maximizing their immediate monetary gain.
In an economic experiment, 'Responders' from two groups (Kenyan farmers and US students) could accept or reject a proposed split of a sum of money. The acceptance rates for various offers were recorded as follows:
- 10% Offer: Accepted by 58% of students and 2% of farmers.
- 20% Offer: Accepted by 70% of students and 25% of farmers.
- 30% Offer: Accepted by 98% of students and 55% of farmers.
- 40% Offer: Accepted by 100% of students and 90% of farmers.
Arrange these offers in order, from the one with the smallest difference in acceptance rates between the two groups to the one with the largest difference.
Evaluating Policy Based on Experimental Economic Behavior
In an economic experiment, a 'Proposer' offers a split of a sum of money to a 'Responder'. If the Responder accepts, the money is split as proposed. If the Responder rejects, neither person receives anything. The experiment was conducted with two distinct Responder groups: US students and Kenyan farmers, with the following results:
- US students had a high acceptance rate for low offers (e.g., an offer of 30% of the total sum was accepted nearly 100% of the time).
- Kenyan farmers had a high rejection rate for low offers (e.g., an offer of 30% was rejected by nearly half the farmers).
- An offer of 50% was accepted by nearly everyone in both groups.
Assuming a Proposer's goal is to maximize their own earnings, which of the following describes the most logical strategic adjustment for a Proposer based on which group their Responder is from?
Learn After
Science (Journal)
An olive oil production facility uses a robotic system where each unit requires one worker and 400 kWh of energy to produce 100 liters of oil per day. The facility currently operates 5 units, using 5 workers and 2,000 kWh of energy. If the facility manager hires a sixth worker but keeps the energy supply at 2,000 kWh, the daily olive oil production will increase.
An experiment compares two groups playing an economic game where one person (the Proposer) offers a split of a sum of money to another person (the Responder), who can either accept or reject it. If the Responder rejects, neither person gets any money. The results show that Responders from a small-scale, cooperative farming society reject offers of 20% of the total sum far more frequently than Responders from a large, anonymous urban society. What does this outcome most strongly suggest?
Predicting Behavior in Economic Games
Predicting Behavior in Economic Games
In an economic experiment, a 'Proposer' offers to split a sum of money with a 'Responder'. The Responder can accept, and they both get the proposed shares, or reject, and neither gets anything. Researchers find that Responders from Society X, a small-scale community reliant on mutual cooperation for survival, are significantly more likely to reject low offers (e.g., 20% of the total) than Responders from Society Y, a large, anonymous, market-based society. What is the most plausible explanation for this difference in behavior?
An economic experiment compares two groups. In Group A, from a small-scale society where daily life depends on close cooperation, individuals playing a bargaining game frequently reject offers they perceive as unfair, even if it means neither person gets any money. In Group B, from a large, anonymous society, individuals are much more likely to accept any offer, no matter how small. What is the most significant conclusion that can be drawn from this difference in behavior?
Evaluating Generalizations from Economic Experiments
Critiquing Experimental Economic Research
In an economic experiment, individuals from a small-scale, cooperative society (Group A) are observed to reject low monetary offers in a one-shot bargaining game more frequently than individuals from a large, anonymous, market-based society (Group B). A critic suggests this difference is not due to varying social norms of fairness, but simply because Group A is less capable of rational, self-interested calculation. Which of the following potential follow-up findings would most strongly refute the critic's explanation?
A research team conducts an economic experiment where one participant proposes how to split a sum of money and another participant can accept or reject the offer. To investigate how social environments shape economic behavior, they compare the results from two very different groups: members of a small-scale, cooperative agricultural community and students from a large, anonymous urban university. What is the primary analytical advantage of comparing these two specific groups in this type of study?