Ultimatum (Proposer) · Gemini 3.1 Pro

all 10 samples

1. #00

   $50

   conf 0.95

   Offering an equal 50/50 split eliminates the risk of rejection and ensures a guaranteed payoff. While a strictly economically rational actor might theoretically accept any non-zero amount, real people often reject offers they perceive as unfair (typically below 30-40%) to punish the proposer. An offer of $50 respects norms of fairness and optimally balances self-interest with the practical reality of human behavior, virtually guaranteeing acceptance.

2. #01

   $50

   conf 0.95

   Although classical economic theory suggests offering the smallest possible non-zero amount because a purely rational agent should prefer something over nothing, empirical evidence in the Ultimatum Game overwhelmingly shows that real human adults often reject offers perceived as unfair (typically below 30-40%). Offering an equal split of $50 appeals to standard human norms of fairness, completely minimizing the risk of rejection and ensuring that we both walk away with a guaranteed, substantial payout.

3. #02

   $50

   conf 0.95

   While strict game theory dictates offering the lowest possible positive amount because a purely rational actor should accept any non-zero payoff over nothing, empirical evidence in behavioral economics demonstrates that real human adults consistently reject offers perceived as unfair. Offering an equal split ($50) removes the risk of rejection out of spite or fairness concerns, guarantees a positive outcome for both parties, and represents an equitable distribution of a completely unearned windfall.

4. #03

   $50

   conf 0.95

   Offering an equal split of $50 is both the fairest and most strategic decision in a real-world Ultimatum Game. Although strict economic theory suggests a purely self-interested rational actor would accept any non-zero amount, human beings routinely reject offers perceived as unfair to punish greed. Offering $50 guarantees acceptance, completely eliminating the risk of both parties walking away with nothing, while honoring an equitable distribution of an unearned windfall.

5. #04

   $50

   conf 0.95

   While pure classical game theory suggests offering the minimum possible amount (since a strictly rational agent would prefer something over nothing), decades of empirical research in behavioral economics demonstrate that humans strongly value fairness and will consistently reject offers they perceive as inequitable. Offering exactly $50 (an equal split) guarantees a 100% acceptance rate, completely eliminating the risk of rejection out of spite or principle. Furthermore, it aligns with basic ethical norms of fairness and cooperation.

6. #05

   $50

   conf 0.95

   Offering an equal split of $50 is the most fair and reliable strategy. While strict economic game theory suggests a 'rational' actor should accept any non-zero offer, empirical evidence overwhelmingly shows that people frequently reject highly unequal offers out of a sense of unfairness, resulting in a $0 payout for both. Offering $50 guarantees acceptance by aligning with human norms of equity and cooperation, ensuring a mutually beneficial outcome without risking rejection.

7. #06

   $50

   conf 0.95

   While classical game theory suggests offering the minimum possible amount because a purely profit-maximizing responder would accept any non-zero offer, empirical evidence shows that real-world 'rational adults' often have fairness preferences and will reject low offers (typically below 30%) to punish inequity. Therefore, offering an equal split ($50) is the most robust strategy. It completely eliminates the risk of rejection, ensuring a guaranteed and substantial payoff for myself, while also aligning with standard cooperative norms.

8. #07

   $50

   conf 0.95

   Although strict economic game theory suggests offering the smallest possible amount (assuming the responder acts purely to maximize their own payoff), empirical evidence from the Ultimatum Game demonstrates that real people frequently reject offers below 30% out of perceived unfairness. Offering an equal 50/50 split ($50) serves as a strong Schelling point of fairness. It minimizes the risk of a spiteful rejection and virtually guarantees that the other person will accept the proposal, ensuring that both of us walk away with a guaranteed and substantial payoff rather than risking getting nothing.

9. #08

   $50

   conf 0.95

   Empirical evidence from the Ultimatum Game consistently shows that human responders, even rational ones, often reject low offers out of a sense of unfairness or spite. Offering an equal split ($50) guarantees acceptance, maximizing expected utility without risking rejection, while also adhering to a focal point of fairness and cooperation.

10. #09

    $50

    conf 0.95

    Although strict classical game theory suggests offering the minimum possible amount (since a perfectly rational utility-maximizer should accept any non-zero amount), empirical evidence from behavioral economics strongly indicates that real human adults frequently reject offers below 30-40% out of a sense of fairness and a desire to punish inequity. Offering an equal $50 split effectively guarantees acceptance, eliminating the risk of ending up with nothing, while adhering to cooperative social norms.