| Abstract: | Eighty male subjects participated in a tetradic weighted-majority game in which a coalition was required to control the division of the payoff. The amount of the payoff and/of the probability of receiving the payoff were varied. The data strongly supported the hypothesis that subjects would prefer the coalition with the largest expected value (size of payoff x probability of success = expected value) rather than the coalition with the largest payoff or the coalition with the highest probability of success. However, contrary to expectations, the 'division of rewards was found to be a function of the relative assigned resources of the coalition members, despite the lack of a logical connection between the assigned resources and the rules governing obtaining the payoff. |
