Probabilistic fair behaviors spark its boost in the Ultimatum Game: the strength of good Samaritans

Abstract

Behavioral experiments on the Ultimatum Game have shown that we human beings have remarkable preference in fair play, contradicting the predictions by the game theory. Most of the existing models seeking for explanations, however, strictly follow the assumption of \emph{Homo economicus} in orthodox Economics that people are self-interested and fully rational to maximize their earnings. Here we relax this assumption by allowing that people probabilistically choose to be "good Samaritans", acting as fair players from time to time. For well-mixed and homogeneously structured populations, we numerically show that as this probability increases the level of fairness undergoes from the low scenario abruptly to the full fairness state, where occasional fair behaviors ($\sim5\%$) are sufficient to drive the whole population to behave in the half-half split manner. We also develop a mean-field theory, which correctly reproduces the first-order phase transition and points out that the bistability is an intrinsic property of this game and small fair acts lead to dramatical change due to its bifurcation structure. Heterogeneously structured populations, however, display continuous fairness transition; surprisingly, very few hub nodes acting as fair players are able to entrain the whole population to the full fairness state. Our results thus reveal the unexpected strength of "good Samaritans", which may constitute a new explanation for the emergence of fairness in our society.