Building a Better Vocabulary

Lecture 26: A Vocabulary Grab Bag

each customer the following choice: Either he took the horse

nearest the door or he got no horse at all.

ż This system ensured equal rest for the horses and equal

treatment for the customers. And it also gave rise to the phrase

+REVRQ¶VFKRLFH, which spread throughout Cambridge and to

other cities in England to mean “no choice at all.”

z A truly intriguing example of Hobson’s choice in action can

be found in the ultimatum game, which has been devised by

researchers in economics to explore the rationale behind individual

decision making.

ż In this game, Player 1 is given $100 and asked to make a

proposal for dividing the money with Player 2. Player 2 can

either accept the division exactly as proposed by Player 1

or choose not to take the offer, in which case, neither player

receives any money.

ż Not surprisingly, most people are willing to accept an equal

division of the money, and some will accept a 60/40 or 70/30

VSOLW%XWZKDWGRSHRSOHGRZKHQRIIHUHGDVSOLW"

ż Anyone operating on the basis of a purely rational economic

decision would take this offer because having $1.00 is better

than having nothing. But many people reject an offer of 99/1,

even though rejection means that they will not receive any

money at all.

ż Obviously, there’s a lot more at work here than simply making

an economic decision. One explanation for people rejecting

the 99/1 offer is that humans have a sense of inherent fairness,

and if we perceive an offer as being unfair, we don’t want the

XQIDLUSHUVRQWRSUR¿WIURPLWHYHQLIWKDWPHDQVWKDWZHDOVR

get nothing.

ż The ultimatum game is an example of a Hobson’s choice in

action.