Social norms of fairness with reputation-based role assignment in the dictator game

Role polarization and its effects in the spatial ultimatum game

Human society is believed to be becoming increasingly polarized, yet it remains unclear how role polarization influences the evolution of fairness. In addition, little is known about role adaptation, despite the fact that altering the roles of players can often change the outcome of the ultimatum game. Unlike earlier static, random, symmetric role assignment, here I suggest a succeed-reinforce-fail-slacken role adaptation rule that encourages successful proposers in the present round to propose again in the next round and vice versa. The results demonstrate that this simple rule can tip the scales in favor of fair strategies when it comes to the proposer advantage, and therein lies the key to promoting fairness. Depending on its pace, notably, role adaptation can direct the system to equilibrium states that bear variable degrees of role polarization, with two consequences incidentally. Not only does it favor fairness, it also fosters empathy. Noise associated with role adaptation often reduces role polarization and thus has a negative impact on fairness and empathy. The comparison of experiments with various networks validates the substantial resilience of role polarization to structural changes. These findings add to the evidence for role polarization and highlight the centrality of role adaptation in the evolution of fairness.

Evolution of fairness in the divide-a-lottery game

In this paper, we show that fairness can evolve in the divide-a-lottery game which is more general than the divide-a-dollar game by using an indirect evolutionary approach. In the divide-a-lottery game, the size of a pie is uncertain. Two players sequentially bid for a share and they get their bid if the allocation based on the bids turns out to be feasible and otherwise neither gets anything. In this game, rational players over-compete for a higher share, resulting in a high probability of failure in agreement, whereas fair players who dislike the disparity between shares lower their bids thereby reducing the failure probability and thus increasing the expected payoff. As a result, fairness strictly dominates rationality. This is the mechanism through which fairness evolves. However, this result is not robust against even a slight uncertainty about the opponent's type. Surprisingly, we show a contrasted simulation result that only rational players who are strictly dominated by fair players survive evolutionarily for most of the parameter values if players have even a slight chance of not knowing the opponent's type. Our simulation results in a local interaction model in which players only know the type of closer neighbors capture both insights and demonstrate that moderate proportions of both types coexist evolutionarily over time, and that the population average fitness of this polymorphic population is higher than monomorphic population consisting only of fair types or rational types.