Thought experiment - Would you take the money?

[mr friendly guy]

The scenario is this, a third party (people running the experiment) offers a person (lets call them the "splitter") x amount of money. There is a criteria that they have to split the money with another person (random person who they don't know). The split can occur in any ratio the "splitter" wants, the only criteria is that he cannot give himself 100% and the other person 0%.

Now the second person, lets call him the "chooser" has the option of accepting the money he is offered or refusing. If he refuses neither party gets anything.

So my question is, if you were offered the money in a ratio vastly favouring the "splitter", would you take the money. So for example, the splitter gets say $90 and you get $10, will you take it?

Now keep in mind that you get $10 for free, despite the fact that the "splitter" gets the majority of the cash. If you refuse, you both get nothing.

Now lets change the ratio being offered. Will you take the money if the ratio is more even, say 50-50 and at what ratio would you still refuse.

Now lets say, the ratio stays the same, but the amount of money being offered is higher. Say the same 9:1 ratio, but your share is somewhat higher than $10. At what point (cash value) would you take it despite the gross inequality.

Note this experiment has apparently been done before (except the part where I increased the amount of cash offered),and I was told the result was

those who split the money closer to equal shares had most people agree to the split, those who split unequally had more refusals, the more unequal, the greater number of refusals. While refusing to take money even if unequal doesn't seem logical as you get free cash (the fact the other person gets more is irrelevant), its thought this type of reaction may be a by product of evolution to prevent you getting screwed over by other people.

[Lord Zentei]

If I were offering, I'd offer 50-50, if I were taking I'd take pretty much anything.

And yea, I've heard of the results -- go figure.

[salm]

It really depends on the amount x. 10% is a signifcant amount of money, say 100€ (i know, i´m cheap ) i swallow my pride and accept 10% even though the splitter is a dick. If 10% is 10€ i tell the splitter to go fuck himself.
It also depends on who the splitter is. If it´s some random person i´ll most likely never see again i´ll be more likely to let myself geted fucked over.
Furthermore it depends on the audience. Do other people see that i´m getting fucked over is important because that way they can see if i´m a person who lets himself get fucked over for a certain amount of cash.

[Twoyboy]

If this were a one off, I'd take any amount at any ratio. Free money! Woohoo!

If this was a reoccurring experiment, I'd want pretty close to equal, for small amounts. But if the amount started getting over $10000, I'd probably start taking ratios down to 20%, maybe lower.

[R. U. Serious]

So my question is, if you were offered the money in a ratio vastly favouring the "splitter", would you take the money. So for example, the splitter gets say $90 and you get $10, will you take it?

Like twoboy says, if this is a one-shot game, and there is no further "game"-interaction, I would agree to any amount. If there is going to be repeat-games, I would try a sort of "tit-for-tat" strategy where everything the splitter sugests that's 50/50 or better for me is coperation, and everthing the splitter sugests that is worse, it defecting. Except for the last game, where I would again agree to every amount.

On repeat-games, your choice is obviously going to affect the other players future strategy, so while you loose the "free money" on defecting in that turn, it increases your chances of getting a "better" amount in the following rounds.

[Soontir C'boath]

Really, if I'm not going to get another chance at it, I might as well take it no matter what percentage I get. Those who don't do this usually are people who don't like the fact that the other person would get more of the money even if you have no control over the ratio whatsoever.

[Lord Zentei]

So my question is, if you were offered the money in a ratio vastly favouring the "splitter", would you take the money. So for example, the splitter gets say $90 and you get $10, will you take it?

Like twoboy says, if this is a one-shot game, and there is no further "game"-interaction, I would agree to any amount. If there is going to be repeat-games, I would try a sort of "tit-for-tat" strategy where everything the splitter sugests that's 50/50 or better for me is coperation, and everthing the splitter sugests that is worse, it defecting. Except for the last game, where I would again agree to every amount.

On repeat-games, your choice is obviously going to affect the other players future strategy, so while you loose the "free money" on defecting in that turn, it increases your chances of getting a "better" amount in the following rounds.

From the context, I gathered that it was a one-shot, but if not, your method is indeed the correct one.

[Lord Pounder]

Money is money, I'd take whatever was offered within reason, but if i'm the splitter i'll offer a 50/50

[Pick]

I'll take any amount of money I am offered. It's free money--I'm maximizing my utility by accepting it.

[Singular Intellect]

I'd take whatever cash I was offered. Even if it was a buck. If I was the one making the ratio, it would depend on how much the amount in question is. The higher the amount, the greater the ratio will favor me.

[Eris]

Thought experiment my arse, I participated in one of these as part of a course on game theory, decision making, and rationality a while back. I was, by your terminology, the splitter and divided it up 50/50, partly because I knew the other person would probably accept it (it was a simultaneous blind-acceptance, so I only had one shot at it) and partly because I at least like to think I'm a fair person.

That said, I'm not certain I'd accept any offer, as I'm not at all convinced that doing so would lead to an optimum outcome - assuming of course that's what I'm aiming for. Or rather, that bloody course left me so uncertain about exactly what a rational agent ought to do that I'm no longer willing to commit myself.

...which was probably the worst thing I could have come out from that course thinking, but there you have it.

[Twoyboy]

That said, I'm not certain I'd accept any offer, as I'm not at all convinced that doing so would lead to an optimum outcome - assuming of course that's what I'm aiming for.

If it was a one off and you did not speak about your likely choices before the offer, it would have to be the optimum outcome.

Something vs Nothing.

[General Zod]

Free money with no moral dilemma strings attached and no bad stuff happening if I take it? Cool. Obviously my answer is yes, I'd take it.

[Wyrm]

If I accept, I get $10. If I refuse, I get nothing. I don't even have to work to get it. The choice is clear: I take the money.

[Teleros]

And yea, I've heard of the results -- go figure.

Yeah, I've heard the results too. Were I on the receiving end though, I'd take any offer if it makes me better off. Of course were it the 9:1 split or whatever I'd prefer to try and up my share, but even without the possibility of negotiating a better deal I'd accept.
As to what I offer, it depends on the precise circumstances. If I get to introduce the offer face to face I'd offer as little as I think I can get away with. The more restricted it is on me the more I'd move to a 50:50 split.

[Molyneux]

My gut says to not take it...but my gut's full of you-know-what.

Free, ethically-gained money? You betcha. $10>$0.

[Xenophobe3691]

Hm. Yes.

The only way to lose is to not agree.

[Hillary]

Depends on the sum involved. If someone was being a dick and offering 10%, it'd be worth losing, say, £10, in order to fuck him over. Would it be worth losing £100? Depends how I was feeling. £1,000 - hell no, bank that cheque.

[Balrog]

Ten bucks is ten bucks, especially when you didn't have to do anything to earn it. I'd probably take it, though reading about the experiment was quite interesting.

[R. U. Serious]

The funny thing is, of course, that when you are the splitter and have to suggest a split, you will adjust for the "rationality" of the chooser. If he was an average shmoe, you're better off trying a near 50/50 split. But if you know the chooser is a very rational person, then you know you can "screw" them over by offering him a few dollars and be able to take most of the money home So as in a game of chicken, you're better off making your opponent think you will accept nothing less then half! Hear that, SD-users *shakesfist*, I will not play your games and be played - give me half or more, else you get nothing!

[AMX]

Um, guys - there is a problem with "take the money, no matter how unfair the split":
Reinforcement.

Basically, by agreeing to an unfair split, you reward the splitter for being a jerk, thus increasing the likelihood that he will act like a jerk on future occasions.
If you refuse, he might realize that being a prick doesn't pay.

So, in the interest of everyone he will interact with in the future, you should refuse an unfair offer.

[Big Phil]

I'm going against the grain here - unless it was 50/50, or perhaps 60/40 in th e splitter's favor, I'd refuse and we both get nothing. I'd rather we both have nothing than me get a pittance and the other jackass get nearly everything.

[Klatoo]

I would say yes to a ~40% split, but would say no to anything less than ~30% out of a sense of duty. The splitter believes they can profit by offering an unfair split and if I agree to it I have given positive reinforcement to that belief. Had the splitter learned in previous dealings with other people that this behaviour is unacceptable I might not be in this situation. I would feel responsible for delivering the negative reinforcement that the splitter seems to have evaded for years. I would likely fail, but that doesn't release me from my duty.

As the raw amount goes up I would have a harder and harder time doing this even though it's more important that I do it. Saying no to a few thousand would haunt me and $10,000 and up I don't know if I could say no to.

[salm]

Anybody who claims that he would give up 50 bucks just to avoid giving some jackass positive reenforcement is a liar.

[General Zod]

Anybody who claims that he would give up 50 bucks just to avoid giving some jackass positive reenforcement is a liar.

There's also no real moral imperative involved, so people refusing the cash because they aren't getting more are just being greedy. It's not as if they have to do anything to earn it.