Ultimatum game behaviors

Ultimatum game behaviors

Unfair offers in many animals elicited activity in the brain areas related to both emotion and cognition. Before we tackle that we also note that reciprocity and fairness, alongside empathy and compassion are the pillars of morality among animals.

If we can be guided by the reaction of capuchin monkeys; where they did get offers from humans that were largely unfair, in this case one of them getting a raw deal, the victim protested and even rejected the offer.

Where an animal was involved to another animal, there was more equity in that they chose equitably to share the offers or even helped each other get a reward even where one was not particularly interested.

Lamelara of Indonesia were depicted to share equitably 58% of the time which can be attributed to the fact that they were culturally dependent.

Hazda of Tanzania on the other hand had lowest offers being rejected most of the time. This phenomenon could be partly explained by cultural expectations and the fear of ostracism.

Question 2: Method that would allow better understanding whether chimps and young children can play role of responders in a similar way to human adults.

In the area of laboratory experiment, chimps as the first specimen, to determine if there is deep understanding of fair offers among them I would put them in a cage with clear glass wall as a divide and place 10 pieces of ripe bananas in the middle of that cage that is accessible to both and visible at the same time to them. In this case they are able to judge though roughly, the amount of offer that is to be shared between the two, and have equal access.

In the case of children, an experiment to prove or disapprove unfair offers to each other would be to put them in a room that has four similar toys to be shared between the two of them. The children should be around 4 years so that mobility is not hampered as well and reactions are equally strong to note.

Question 3: Comparing difference in responses between capuchin monkeys and dogs.

We find that when one capuchin monkey realized that its counterpart was getting a higher reward for reacting to an offer, it triggered actions and protests for unfairness. Where the human being continued to offer unequal rewards, there were instances it could refuse the reward deemed inequitable. Which depicts a strong sense of fairness between these animals.

In the case of the control dog and the experiment dog. Responses to the tasks given depended on their being rewarded. No reward in place led to less response from both, the control and the experiment dog.

However, the most interesting thing from the experiment was that in the dogs, their reaction to the reward being given was not dependent on the other one getting a similar treatment.

Question 4:  Additional measures included in the two yawn contagion experiments and why they were included.

In the yawn contagion experiment on chimps, there was the inclusion of chimps that came from the same group as the one in the laboratory or test cage. In the same breathe, there was a chimp yawning that was not familiar to the experiment chimp.

In the case of the dog under test, images of the owner yawning was presented as long as images of a person yawning that was not familiar to it.

The extra measures were included in both instances to depict that yawn contagion phenomenon was more pronounced where there was prosocial attachment between animals.

Question 5: Assumption that morality needs to be taught by human religions.

Human religion has emphasized a lot and cemented itself as the moral cop of the universe. This has led to the underlying assumption that human beings have to be constantly reminded to do well, and people who are not religious termed as bad people.

However, from the experiment there is a strong sense that human beings are naturally able to know what is right and wrong without religion coming into focus.

It also lifts the veil to judge people on their actions rather than religious creeds.

1

1