Game offers track whether people see money as shared or personal.

Evidence

Henrich et al. contrast the Lamalera to the Tsimane of Bolivia and the Machiguenga of Peru who “live in societies with little cooperation, sharing, or exchange beyond the family unit. … Consequently, it is not very surprising that in an anonymous interaction both groups made low UG offers” (p. 812). In accord with their cultural values and practices, Lamalera proposers in the Ultimatum Game think of the money as owned in common with the recipient, whereas Tsimane and Machigenga proposers see the money as their own and feel entitled to keep it. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 136

Categorization

• XREF: The ‘ownership frame vs. common frame’ split echoes the partner-choice logic in Baumard et al. that the reading purpose invokes—what people feel entitled to depends on perceived rights over resources. — connects to: A people’s real-life sharing customs predict their game behavior. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 135; Money expands economic circles and individualizes participants simultaneously — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 664; The cash economy correlates social expansion with individual differentiation — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 663 (+1 more)

Related

• A people’s real-life sharing customs predict their game behavior. (similarity 0.85)
• Recasting an economic game as mutual hospitality drops offers to locally appropriate sharing norms. (similarity 0.84)
• Fairness in economic games tracks perceived entitlement rather than raw contribution. (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Money expands economic circles and individualizes participants simultaneously #expands (0.75) — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 664
• The cash economy correlates social expansion with individual differentiation #expands (0.72) — Georg Simmel, on individuality and social forms_…, 663