Social inequity aversion

Last updated

Inequity is injustice or unfairness or an instance of either of the two. [1] Aversion is "a feeling of repugnance toward something with a desire to avoid or turn from it; a settled dislike; a tendency to extinguish a behavior or to avoid a thing or situation and especially a usually pleasurable one because it is or has been associated with a noxious stimulus". [2] The given definition of inequity aversion is "the preference for fairness and resistance to inequitable outcomes".

Contents

Clarification through experiment

To better understand and breakdown the concept of social inequity aversion would be to use the study done by Sarah Brosnan and Frans de Waal, [3] who specialize in social behavior and social cognition. [4] In their experiment, "Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay" five female capuchin monkeys were used and given an unequal distribution of rewards by the human experimenter. The female monkeys alternated in pairs under four different conditions with the experimenter. Of the female monkeys, two received the same reward, one female received a superior reward, one female received a superior reward without exchange (for example without work), and a single female observed a superior reward in the absence of a partner. [5] The females were much less likely to complete a trade with the human experimenter when their corresponding partner received a food item of higher value item (a grape; the lower item was a cucumber [3] ), and when that partner received the higher food item with no exchange of work of any kind, the likelihood of not completing a trade intensified. [5] All of these refusals of exchange included both passive and active rejections ranging from refusing to take the awards to throwing the reward, respectively. These negative responses of situation made with the monkeys support the early evolutionary origin of inequity aversion [5] and thus helps (in combination with the definitions of inequity and aversion) give an overall idea of what social inequity aversion is: the tendency to reject or avoid situations in which there is social inequality, unfairness, or injustice.

In humans

It is important to note that the experiment was done with capuchin monkeys and not humans, and because humans are not the only cooperative animals (monkeys being one of many examples), we cannot assume that inequity aversion is an exclusive human trait or nature. [6] There have been other experiments done with humans to test the validity of the inequity aversion theory proposed by Brosnan and de Waal. An experiment performed by Urs Fischbacher, Christina M. Fong, and Ernst Fehr called "Fairness, Errors, and the Power of Competition" [7] consisted of a multi-lateral ultimatum game where one contestant was put up against multiple ones. [3] In this experiment when the responders accepts the offer from the person giving the reward (say the 'provider'), the person giving the reward (the provider) gets his full pay. The key to this experiment is that the ability of one responder to affect the pay of the provider is lessened by all of the other responders' willingness to accept the reward. As a result, the concept of inequity aversion is followed, which says that the responders' willingness to reject the reward is lessened as well as the providers' offers. [3] (This is because in order to evade inequality or injustice due to unequal pay, all of the participants reduce their amounts to reduce the chance of unfairness). What's most important to realize in this experiment is that the outcome does not seem to agree with those of Brosnan and de Waal's capuchin experiment; humans will not reject the offer unless it affects others reward and/or pay. [3] So for humans, the original Fehr-Schmidt inequity aversion model, which was cited by Brosnan and de Waal in their capuchin experiment saying that the capuchin monkeys should always eat the lower value food, seems to hold validity. By not rejecting the reward offered, the humans decreased the amount of inequality. This was the opposite for the capuchins as they rejected the lower value food (cucumbers) when they could not get the higher value food (grapes) thus increasing the inequality, especially when the capuchins who received the grapes stole the discarded cucumbers, leaving the other monkeys with nothing. That increased the amount of inequality among the capuchins—the humans would only reject the reward if it reduced the reward of the individual who received the most. [3]

Combining with social inequality

According to Sarah Brosnan, "human beings have a similar approach, we do not live in a world of absolute values but one in which we are constantly comparing ourselves with those about us and, like a capuchin, we can tell when we are being short changed". [5] This can directly be connected to social inequality in that we as humans know what social inequality is and can identify it as an injustice; it is how we know that something such as unequal pay based on socioeconomic status is social inequality. However, according to the concept of social inequity aversion, we will not reject what is offered to us unless we realize that by rejecting what we are offered we will reduce another person's earnings or the earnings of the person who is giving to us, thus making our earnings closer to theirs, thus lessening the inequality.

One key example that links these two concepts could be that of the Neoclassical labor-market theory. Based on several important facts, this theory is based on the supposition that "(1) a relatively free and open market exists in which individuals compete for position. (2) Position in that markets depends heavily on the individual's efforts, abilities, experience, training, or 'human capital.' (3) There are automatic mechanisms that operate in the marketplace to ensure that imbalances between one's input (human capital) and one's rewards (wages) are corrected in a way to restore balance" (Hurst 231). [8] This concept is interesting in that the third fact that is assumed to be true in a labor-market theory would apply greatly to the concept of social inequity aversion. This is because it would seem that in order to get the reward that is expected we as people will take what is given to us for our skill. But when it becomes possible that our fellow citizen can get more than us, or that the company that is providing us with the reward (payments) gets more money from our labor/skill, then we as people in this labor market theory will reject the payments, and try to obtain a better one. We do this by trying to attain better resources for ourselves, such as "education, training, skills, and intelligence" (Hurst 231). [8] So take for example an African American woman, she will take the payment that all African American women are receiving. But once another African American woman begins to get better payment: via her better resources, other African American women will reject their current position as well as resources and seek more to in order to, maybe not directly lessen the payment that other African American woman, but to get more for themselves. This greatly illustrates the social inequity aversion concept when it comes to humans and how it crosses with the neoclassical labor market theory. However, because it is a continuous process in which different opportunities open up doors for individuals based on their life changes and access to better resources, an imbalance is made and a gap develops, thus separating individuals and creating ongoing social inequality (Hurst 231). [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

Egalitarianism, or equalitarianism, is a school of thought within political philosophy that builds on the concept of social equality, prioritizing it for all people. Egalitarian doctrines are generally characterized by the idea that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. Egalitarianism is the doctrine that all citizens of a state should be accorded exactly equal rights. Egalitarian doctrines have motivated many modern social movements and ideas, including the Enlightenment, feminism, civil rights, and international human rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Behavioral economics</span> Academic discipline

Behavioral economics studies the effects of psychological, cognitive, emotional, cultural and social factors on the decisions of individuals or institutions, such as how those decisions vary from those implied by classical economic theory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Frans de Waal</span> Dutch primatologist and ethologist

Franciscus Bernardus Maria "Frans" de Waal is a Dutch primatologist and ethologist. He is the Charles Howard Candler Professor of Primate Behavior in the Department of Psychology at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory, and author of numerous books including Chimpanzee Politics (1982) and Our Inner Ape (2005). His research centers on primate social behavior, including conflict resolution, cooperation, inequity aversion, and food-sharing. He is a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neuroeconomics</span> Interdisciplinary field

Neuroeconomics is an interdisciplinary field that seeks to explain human decision-making, the ability to process multiple alternatives and to follow through on a plan of action. It studies how economic behavior can shape our understanding of the brain, and how neuroscientific discoveries can guide models of economics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Loss aversion</span> Cognitive bias

Loss aversion is the tendency to prefer avoiding losses to acquiring equivalent gains. The principle is prominent in the domain of economics. What distinguishes loss aversion from risk aversion is that the utility of a monetary payoff depends on what was previously experienced or was expected to happen. Some studies have suggested that losses are twice as powerful, psychologically, as gains. Loss aversion was first identified by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman.

Equity theory focuses on determining whether the distribution of resources is fair to both relational partners. Equity is measured by comparing the ratio of contributions and benefits for each person. Considered one of the justice theories, equity theory was first developed in the 1960s by J. Stacy Adams, a workplace and behavioral psychologist, who asserted that employees seek to maintain equity between the inputs that they bring to a job and the outcomes that they receive from it against the perceived inputs and outcomes of others. According to Equity Theory, in order to maximize individuals' rewards, we tend to create systems where resources can be fairly divided amongst members of a group. Inequalities in relationships will cause those within it to be unhappy to a degree proportional to the amount of inequality. The belief is that people value fair treatment which causes them to be motivated to keep the fairness maintained within the relationships of their co-workers and the organization. The structure of equity in the workplace is based on the ratio of inputs to outcomes. Inputs are the contributions made by the employee for the organization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ultimatum game</span> Game in economic experiments

The ultimatum game is a game that has become a popular instrument of economic experiments. An early description is by Nobel laureate John Harsanyi in 1961. One player, the proposer, is endowed with a sum of money. The proposer is tasked with splitting it with another player, the responder. Once the proposer communicates his decision, the responder may accept it or reject it. If the responder accepts, the money is split per the proposal; if the responder rejects, both players receive nothing. Both players know in advance the consequences of the responder accepting or rejecting the offer.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capuchin monkey</span> Subfamily of New World monkeys

The capuchin monkeys are New World monkeys of the subfamily Cebinae. They are readily identified as the "organ grinder" monkey, and have been used in many movies and television shows. The range of capuchin monkeys includes some tropical forests in Central America and South America as far south as northern Argentina. In Central America, where they are called white-faced monkeys ("carablanca"), they usually occupy the wet lowland forests on the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica and Panama and deciduous dry forest on the Pacific coast.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equity (economics)</span> Economic concept of fairness

Equity, or economic equality, is the concept or idea of fairness in economics, particularly in regard to taxation or welfare economics. More specifically, it may refer to a movement that strives to provide equal life chances regardless of identity, to provide all citizens with a basic and equal minimum of income, goods, and services or to increase funds and commitment for redistribution.

Personnel economics has been defined as "the application of economic and mathematical approaches and econometric and statistical methods to traditional questions in human resources management". It is an area of applied micro labor economics, but there are a few key distinctions. One distinction, not always clearcut, is that studies in personnel economics deal with the personnel management within firms, and thus internal labor markets, while those in labor economics deal with labor markets as such, whether external or internal. In addition, personnel economics deals with issues related to both managerial-supervisory and non-supervisory workers.

Inequity aversion (IA) is the preference for fairness and resistance to incidental inequalities. The social sciences that study inequity aversion include sociology, economics, psychology, anthropology, and ethology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ernst Fehr</span> Austrian economist

Ernst Fehr is an Austrian-Swiss behavioral economist and neuroeconomist and a Professor of Microeconomics and Experimental Economic Research, as well as the vice chairman of the Department of Economics at the University of Zürich, Switzerland. His research covers the areas of the evolution of human cooperation and sociality, in particular fairness, reciprocity and bounded rationality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samuel Bowles (economist)</span> American economist

Samuel Stebbins Bowles, is an American economist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where he continues to teach courses on microeconomics and the theory of institutions. His work belongs to the neo-Marxian tradition of economic thought. However, his perspective on economics is eclectic and draws on various schools of thought, including what he and others refer to as post-Walrasian economics.

The concept of the evolution of morality refers to the emergence of human moral behavior over the course of human evolution. Morality can be defined as a system of ideas about right and wrong conduct. In everyday life, morality is typically associated with human behavior rather than animal behavior. The emerging fields of evolutionary biology, and in particular evolutionary psychology, have argued that, despite the complexity of human social behaviors, the precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals. Sociobiological explanations of human behavior remain controversial. Social scientists have traditionally viewed morality as a construct, and thus as culturally relative, although others such as Sam Harris argue that there is an objective science of morality.

Primate cognition is the study of the intellectual and behavioral skills of non-human primates, particularly in the fields of psychology, behavioral biology, primatology, and anthropology.

Social preferences describe the human tendency to not only care about one's own material payoff, but also the reference group's payoff or/and the intention that leads to the payoff. Social preferences are studied extensively in behavioral and experimental economics and social psychology. Types of social preferences include altruism, fairness, reciprocity, and inequity aversion. The field of economics originally assumed that humans were rational economic actors, and as it became apparent that this was not the case, the field began to change. The research of social preferences in economics started with lab experiments in 1980, where experimental economists found subjects' behavior deviated systematically from self-interest behavior in economic games such as ultimatum game and dictator game. These experimental findings then inspired various new economic models to characterize agent's altruism, fairness and reciprocity concern between 1990 and 2010. More recently, there are growing amounts of field experiments that study the shaping of social preference and its applications throughout society.

Sarah Brosnan is a researcher studying the development of cognitive processes that underlie cooperation and reciprocity. The focus of her work has been on how animals perceive "exchanged goods and services," as demonstrated by reciprocal interactions,. She has looked at both human and nonhuman primates as a way of understanding the evolution of cooperative and economic behaviors, specifically the topic of inequity aversion and the cooperative pulling paradigm. She works at Georgia State University in the Department of Psychology, and directs the university's Comparative Economics and Behavioral Studies Laboratory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Exploitation of labour</span> Economic phenomenon

Exploitation of labour is a concept defined as, in its broadest sense, one agent taking unfair advantage of another agent. It denotes an unjust social relationship based on an asymmetry of power or unequal exchange of value between workers and their employers. When speaking about exploitation, there is a direct affiliation with consumption in social theory and traditionally this would label exploitation as unfairly taking advantage of another person because of their inferior position, giving the exploiter the power.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cooperative pulling paradigm</span> Experimental design

The cooperative pulling paradigm is an experimental design in which two or more animals pull rewards toward themselves via an apparatus that they cannot successfully operate alone. Researchers use cooperative pulling experiments to try to understand how cooperation works and how and when it may have evolved.

Inequity aversion in animals is the willingness to sacrifice material pay-offs for the sake of greater equality, something humans tend to do from early age. It manifests itself through negative responses when rewards are not distributed equally between animals. In controlled experiments it has been observed, in varying degrees, in capuchin monkeys, chimpanzees, macaques, marmosets, dogs, wolves, rats, crows and ravens. No evidence of the effect was found in tests with orangutans, owl monkeys, squirrel monkeys, tamarins, kea, and cleaner fish. Due to mixed results in experimental studies it may be that some bonobos, baboons, gibbons, and gorillas are inequity averse. Disadvantageous inequity aversion is most common, that is, the animal protests when it gets a lesser reward than another animal. But advantageous inequity aversion has been observed as well, in chimpanzees, baboons and capuchins: the animal protests when it gets a better reward. Scientists believe that sensitivity to inequity co-evolved with the ability to cooperate, as it helps to sustain benefitting from cooperation.

References

  1. Merriam Webster Online. "Inequity." Retrieved 3 December 2007.
  2. Merriam Webster Online. "Aversion." Retrieved 3 December 2007.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Henrich, Joseph."Animal Behaviour (Communication Arising): Inequity Aversion in Capuchins?" 11 March 2004. Nature. Issue 428. Retrieved 3 December 2007.
  4. Brosnan, Sarah. "Sarah Brosnan, Ph.D." Archived 2005-02-05 at the Wayback Machine Fellowships in Research and Science Teaching. Emory University School of Medicine. Department of Physiology. Retrieved 3 December 2007.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Mardle, Earl. "Inequity Aversion – Even a Monkey Can Pick a Raw Deal". A Networked World. Retrieved 3 December 2007.
  6. Brosnan, Sarah and de Waal, Frans B. M. "Monkeys Reject Unequal Pay". 23 July 2003. Nature. Issue 428. Retrieved 3 December 2007.
  7. Fehr, Ernst. Fischbacher, Urs. Fong, Christina M. "Fairness, Errors, and the Power of Competition" Archived 2007-06-30 at the Wayback Machine . Institute for Empirical Research in Economics. University of Zurich. December 2003.
  8. 1 2 3 Hurst, Charles E. Social Inequality: Forms, Causes, and Consequence. 6th Ed. Pearson Education, Inc. USA. 2007.