题库 > 阅读RC > 题目f9gpdk
题目材料
For many years, theoretical economists characterized humans as rational beings relentlessly bent on maximizing purely selfish reward. Results of an experimental economics study appear to contradict this view, however. In the ""Ultimatum Game,"" two subjects, who cannot exchange information, are placed in separate rooms. One is randomly chosen to propose how a sum of money, known to both, should be shared between them; only one offer, which must be accepted or rejected without negotiation, is allowed.

If, in fact, people are selfish and rational, then the proposer should offer the smallest possible share, while the responder should accept any offer, no matter how small: after all, even one dollar is better than nothing. In numerous trials, however, two-thirds of the offers made were between 40 and 50 percent; only 4 percent were less than 20 percent. Among responders, more than half who were offered less than 20 percent rejected the offer. Behavior in the game did not appreciably depend on the players' sex, age, or education. Nor did the amount of money involved play a significant role: for instance, in trials of the game that were conducted in Indonesia, the sum to be shared was as much as three times the subjects' average monthly income, and still responders refused offers that they deemed too small.

The author refers to the sum of one dollar (line 21) in order to

  • Aquestion the notion that the amount of money involved significantly affected players' behavior
  • Bprovide an example of one of the rare offers made by proposers that was less than 20 percent
  • Cillustrate the rationality of accepting even a very small offer
  • Dsuggest a reason that responders rejected offers that were less than 20 percent
  • Echallenge the conclusion that a selfish and rational proposer should offer a responder the smallest possible share
显示答案
正确答案: C
  • KMF解析
  • 网友解析

题目讨论

如果对题目有疑问,欢迎来提出你的问题,热心的小伙伴会帮你解答。

  • 优质讨论
  • 最新讨论
用户头像
已经输入0个字

最新提问