SoI got so distracted by the topic of distributing rewards in a mass collaboration setting, I briefly poked around the Net for some relevent new research on the topic, and next thing you know I’m knee deep in The Ultimatum Game and Non-Human Primates. Or alternatively you can go for the more provocative title Are Chimps More Rational Then Humans?

And what the heck does this have to do with Kluster you ask? Well, it’s kind of a long story. The Ultimatum Game has been around for about 25 years, and it’s a central part of behavioral economics. In this two person game, one person is given a pile of money. This person gets to choose how to divide it between themself and a second (usually anonymous) person. The second person either accepts this division, or turns it down and both people get nothing. Simple.

So what’s the rational outcome here? Well, from an economist’s perspective the first person should give the second the smallest amount possible (say, a buck), and keep the rest for herself. The second person should accept this small payment, as the alternative is zero. He’s happy because something is better than nothing, and the first person gets to keep the maximum amount possible, so she’s happy. In other words, the most unequal distribution of rewards is the most rational from an economist’s point of view, which helps explain the popularity of economists.

So what happens when the game is actually played? Well, the median offer tends to be 50% of the total, the average is 40% of the total, and if it comes in less than that the second person often turns it down while economists weep quietly on the other side of a one-way mirror. It basically boils down to ”I’d rather both of us have nothing then you have a lot and I have a little, even if I don’t know who you are you greedy (person)!” and challenges the foundation of economic theory in quite a profound way.

And that brings us to Chimpanzees. It turns out Chimpanzees are far more “rational” than humans, but interestingly how they react in “Ultimatum-like games” depends on the stability of their social group. In short, chimps from stable social groups do not respond negatively in situations where partners recieve better rewards, while less established groups show rejection rates of 60%. 

So pretend for a second that humans would behave in a similar fashion. If you’re (say) Kluster, and you bring in an entirely new and random crowd, the odds are there will be a negative reaction if certain partners get better rewards. However, if you can start with a group that already has some form of valuable ties, they might be OK with it.

Of course, I’m not saying this is true – and perhaps in a crowdsourcing set-up, if people understand the reasons for the unequal distribution they’ll be OK with it. But it’s certainly something to think about, and maybe it’s part of the reason so many upstarts have had trouble getting off the ground.