Traditional models of economic decision-making assume that people are self-interested rational maximizers. Empirical research has demonstrated, however, that people will take into account the interests of others and are sensitive to norms of cooperation and fairness. In one of the most robust tests of this finding, the ultimatum game, individuals will reject a proposed division of a monetary windfall, at a cost to themselves, if they perceive it as unfair. Here we show that in an ultimatum game, humans’ closest living relatives, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), are rational maximizers and are not sensitive to fairness. These results support the hypothesis that other-regarding preferences and aversion to inequitable outcomes, which play key roles in human social organization, distinguish us from our closest living relatives.
This is an excerpt/abstract from an article published by Science that I thought was kind of interesting. You have to pay to see the whole article, so I haven’t seen the rest.
I’m left wondering what it means that chimps are “rational maximisers”. Why aren’t they just maximisers? How do we know that chimps are really in it for themselves and humans aren’t? Perhaps humans have a better grasp of consequences. Perhaps humans are the rational maximisers because they know that if they’re not fair today it could bite them in the bum tomorrow.
Of course there are people who do things because they think it’s the right thing to do… it’s nice to remember we’re not all ape-like. 😛