The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is no evidence of strong reciprocity
Open accessAbstract
The strong reciprocity model of the evolution of human cooperation has gained some acceptance, partly on the basis of support from experimental findings. The observation that unfair offers in the ultimatum game are frequently rejected constitutes an important piece of the experimental evidence for strong reciprocity. In the present study, we have challenged the idea that the rejection response in the ultimatum game provides evidence of the assumption held by strong reciprocity theorists that negative reciprocity observed in the ultimatum game is inseparably related to positive reciprocity as the two sides of a preference for fairness. The prediction of an inseparable relationship between positive and negative reciprocity was rejected on the basis of the results of a series of experiments that we conducted using the ultimatum game, the dictator game, the trust game, and the prisoner’s dilemma game. We did not find any correlation between the participants’ tendencies to reject unfair offers in the ultimatum game and their tendencies to exhibit various prosocial behaviors in the other games, including their inclinations to positively reciprocate in the trust game. The participants’ responses to postexperimental questions add support to the view that the rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is a tacit strategy for avoiding the imposition of an inferior status.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism
Trivers, R. L. (1971) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/406755 · Cited by 11,010
Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History
Berg, J., Dickhaut, J., & McCabe, K. (1995) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1006/game.1995.1027 · Cited by 5,548
Cooperation and Punishment in Public Goods Experiments
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.90.4.980 · Cited by 4,547
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02043 · Cited by 3,475 · cited 2×
“For example, in a third-party punishment experiment (8), a dictator makes an unfair allocation to another person who is not the participant.”
BackgroundEvolution of indirect reciprocity
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04131 · Cited by 2,762
The evolution of altruistic punishment
Boyd, R., Gintis, H., Bowles, S., & Richerson, P. J. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0630443100 · Cited by 1,748
Cited by
Personality and prosocial behavior: A theoretical framework and meta-analysis.
Thielmann, I., Spadaro, G., & Balliet, D. (2020) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000217 · Cited by 689
Humans display a ‘cooperative phenotype’ that is domain general and temporally stable
Peysakhovich, A., Nowak, M. A., & Rand, D. G. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms5939 · Cited by 426
Böckler, A., Tusche, A., Schmidt, P., & Singer, T. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-31813-8 · Cited by 107
Haruno, M., Kimura, M., & Frith, C. D. (2014) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00589 · Cited by 102
Moral licensing, instrumental apology and insincerity aversion: Taking Immanuel Kant to the lab
Khalil, E. L., & Feltovich, N. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0206878 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Yamagishi, T., Horita, Y., Mifune, N., Hashimoto, H., Li, Y., Shinada, M., Miura, A., Inukai, K., Takagishi, H., & Simunovic, D.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2012-11-27
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 50
- Pages
- 20364-20368
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2166757776
- Cited by
- 234
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 34.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is no evidence of strong reciprocity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1212126109
- The paper
- Yamagishi, T., Horita, Y., Mifune, N., Hashimoto, H., Li, Y., Shinada, M., Miura, A., Inukai, K., Takagishi, H., & Simunovic, D. (2012). Rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is no evidence of strong reciprocity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212126109
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.