Are Americans More Fair Than Other Cultures?

~ Clarissa

Reader n8chz left a link to a curious article. It discusses an experiment that aimed to find out whether other cultures “shared with the West the same basic instinct for fairness.” Whenever I hear of cultures sharing instincts for anything but food and sex, I become suspicious and with good reason, too, since the basis for the conclusion that there is such “basic instinct for fairness” is nothing short of bizarre.

It turns out that a bunch of weird folks conducted a very strange experiment that was later used to make an outlandish conclusion about Americans being more fair than other cultures:

In each game there are two players who remain anonymous to each other. The first player is given an amount of money, say $100, and told that he has to offer some of the cash, in an amount of his choosing, to the other subject. The second player can accept or refuse the split. But there’s a hitch: players know that if the recipient refuses the offer, both leave empty-handed.

Think about this game and consider what you would do if you were one of the participants.

And this is what the study claims most North Americans did:

North Americans, who are the most common subjects for such experiments, usually offer a 50-50 split when on the giving end. When on the receiving end, they show an eagerness to punish the other player for uneven splits at their own expense.

I have no idea what kind of an over-entitled, spoiled, immature brat believes that strangers should be obligated to give him or her half of what they have and throws a hissy fit when they choose not to. I also fail to imagine who can possibly see this infantile insistence that strangers share what they have equally with you as “fairness.” There is nothing fair in the belief that the property of others belongs to you by default. I refuse to believe that Americans are like this. The experiment was probably rigged, or it tested too few people, or there is something we don’t know about the way it was conducted.

The Machiguenga people of Peru, however, seem a lot more normal than these imaginary Americans when they had a chance to play the game:

It became immediately clear that Machiguengan behavior was dramatically different from that of the average North American. To begin with, the offers from the first player were much lower. In addition, when on the receiving end of the game, the Machiguenga rarely refused even the lowest possible amount. “It just seemed ridiculous to the Machiguenga that you would reject an offer of free money,” says Henrich. “They just didn’t understand why anyone would sacrifice money to punish someone who had the good luck of getting to play the other role in the game.”

I must be an average Machiguenga because I’m just as appalled that anybody would refuse money just to spite somebody else out of a ridiculous sense of over-entitlement. I don’t think anybody owes me anything in this world. If people want to give me something – no matter how small – of their own free will, I will be extremely grateful. I would never stoop to calculating whether they take more for themselves than they give to me. Doing that would be both unfair and extremely vulgar.

So, Americans, am I right or are the people running this experiment right? Would you act like the Americans or like the Machiguenga in this experiment? Do you agree with me that this experiment was rigged to reflect the experimenter’s own prejudices?

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

72 thoughts on “Are Americans More Fair Than Other Cultures?”

  1. I would certainly offer 50/50. But I would accept any amount. I’m not particularly motivated by money. If somehow one could experiment with “time off” or something that I value—then maybe I would behave differently. 😉

    I am imagining that the Americans who refused the money did so not because they thought they were “owed money”– but because they saw themselves as “co-workers” in the experiment and became incensed that their co-workers were trying to “cheat” them out of money. The problem with the experiment in my mind is that it’s not interrogating the notion of “fair.” The results of the experiment don’t surprise me at all. But I don’t think it’s anything to do with fairness per se. It has to do with the American notion of fair and with the American worship of money.

    Like

    Reply

    1. // because they saw themselves as “co-workers” in the experiment and became incensed that their co-workers were trying to “cheat” them out of money.

      Indeed. If the game was played 1 time only, it would make sense to take any amount. But probably some people automatically continue playing the game of their usual lives, aka “I am not somebody to be stepped on and cheated of my share”. It may be mentally hard to switch to “I’ll agree to crumbs too” only for the duration of this experiment.

      Another reason is, of course, the small sum of money involved. If they were offered $10 000, while the other walked away with a million $, most would have agreed.

      As it was, the utility of feeling “I didn’t agree to be spit on” was bigger than having 1$ and a bad feeling inside.

      Like

      Reply

      1. “As it was, the utility of feeling “I didn’t agree to be spit on” was bigger than having 1$ and a bad feeling inside.’

        – So when somebody refuses to give you half of what they own, you perceive that as “being spit on”? It makes you feel bad inside when people don;t give you exactly 50% of what they have? How do you explain such intense feelings about somebody else’s property?

        Like

        Reply

    2. ” It has to do with the American notion of fair and with the American worship of money.”

      – I still don’t get it. If one worships money, surely one would never renounce it just to spite some anonymous person?

      Like

      Reply

      1. // I still don’t get it. If one worships money, surely one would never renounce it just to spite some anonymous person?

        As I said before, it’s a matter of preserving a reputation and one’s self image as a person not to be messed with or cheated on, a matter of automatic behavior, which is beneficial in RL (unlike this game) and even in this experiment, if the game is repeated.

        If the game is repeated twice f.e. and you accept $1 first time, you’ll get $2 at the experiment’s end. If you refuse $1, you may get $10 or more in the second round. 10>2, thus if you really love money, don’t accept all and sundry. Besides, why would you believe the researcher that it is 1 round game only? What if he springs on you “now, you’re playing 2nd time with the same person. Surprise!” And Clarissa, unlike other, business oriented people, gets $1 again. 🙂

        Like

        Reply

        1. “If the game is repeated twice f.e. and you accept $1 first time, you’ll get $2 at the experiment’s end. If you refuse $1, you may get $10 or more in the second round. 10>2, thus if you really love money, don’t accept all and sundry. Besides, why would you believe the researcher that it is 1 round game only?”

          – I think it makes more sense to discuss the game that was described in the article, not a game we just invented. Or we might end up with a completely different, albeit a very interesting game. 🙂 🙂 The game you describe is about betting, and that is a very different situation.

          “What if he springs on you “now, you’re playing 2nd time with the same person. Surprise!” And Clarissa, unlike other, business oriented people, gets $1 again. ”

          – It would still be $2 more than I had before. Like that boy in the famous story who says, “But this way I would have had two kopecks.” 🙂

          Like

          Reply

      2. “But this way I would have had two kopecks.”

        What tense is that, anyway?

        BTW my game strategy in either role would be uniform randomization, especially if I have access to a computer or $ell phone that I can (ideally somewhat discreetly) instruct to give me a random number between 0 and 100 (inclusive, of course). I’m more interested in effing with the head of the researcher than with that of the opponent/partner/co-worker(??)

        Like

        Reply

  2. I too read about similar experiments in several places. Don’t think this one is rigged.

    There is one point here you didn’t give enough weight to, imo: the money in the experiment isn’t other player’s property, but something both players have to cooperate to get. Both players work here, even if “work” is minimized to giving / receiving an offer.

    I read about experiments of such repeated games between 2 players. If the game is repeated, it makes economic sense to create a reputation of somebody, who doesn’t agree to 1$. If you were a sharp toothed sales agent, you would have seen that the behavior is as American as an American pie. 🙂

    In another variation of the game, people agreed to give more money, if another person completed some tasks well. Or agreed to accept less, if were told the other person did something for the money. Forgot which. Or both?

    Like

    Reply

    1. “Both players work here, even if “work” is minimized to giving / receiving an offer.”

      – A can’t understand how anybody who has actually worked a day in their life would see this as work.

      Like

      Reply

      1. OK, not work, but cooperation.

        // How do you explain such intense feelings about somebody else’s property?

        Because it is NOT other player’s property, but our property we have to divide. Like you go on a street and a voice from the sky says: “Clarissa and person X, I decided to give you 100$ as a gift, divide it as you see fit.” And then Mister X tells you “Clarissa, surely the gift was for both of us, but I love money more, so here is your 1$.” And you say “Thank you” ? 🙂

        Like

        Reply

        1. This wasn’t how the experiment was formulated. It was this way: “The first player is given an amount of money, say $100, and told that he has to offer some of the cash, in an amount of his choosing, to the other subject.” I think it says clearly that the 1st player was given this amount. Not that both were given the amount.

          Like

          Reply

      2. // This wasn’t how the experiment was formulated. … I think it says clearly that the 1st player was given this amount. Not that both were given the amount.

        If you have to offer and can lose the money, it is not your money. You don’t have to offer any money you really have to anybody, right?

        This is a “two-stage game in which one player moves first and the other follows.” Nobody has anything untll the game’s end. Except (dis)advantages of moving 1st or 2nd. Students of economics study such and other games in their first years of university, including the possible strategies of the players.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “If you have to offer and can lose the money, it is not your money. You don’t have to offer any money you really have to anybody, right?”

          – According to this logic, my salary is not my money. I have to offer quite a chunk of it in taxes, you know. And penalties for not doing it are extremely harsh. 🙂 We are in the midst of the tax season here.

          “Students of economics study such and other games in their first years of university, including the possible strategies of the players.”

          – I agree that the study of economics is bizarrely bad, at least in North America. My sister has a BComm and she still spits when we discuss her education at the best university in Canada.

          Like

          Reply

      3. // According to this logic, my salary is not my money.

        Indeed, the % you pay in taxes is state’s, not yours. Why is it surprising? I am not talking about “fair” here, but about reality only.

        // I agree that the study of economics is bizarrely bad, at least in North America.

        Why is studying the games’ theory, a huge field btw, a sign of badness? It is a complex field, not only 1-3 simple games you read about in this article.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “/ According to this logic, my salary is not my money.

          Indeed, the % you pay in taxes is state’s, not yours. Why is it surprising? ”

          – You asked whether I am obligated to offer part of my money to somebody and my answer is yes, absolutely. All the time, too. And if the government expected 50% of my money from me, I’d be incensed.

          Like

          Reply

  3. “I can’t understand how anybody who has actually worked a day in their life would see this as work.”

    I could be wrong here. But as far as I know people are paid to participate in experiments. And the pay is something like $100.00-$200.00. And it’s considered a regular–like the experimentees have to fill out a W2 etc etc. I know that many college studetns will volunteer to be part of experiements so they can get make some extra money.

    So the way I took it is that one person was put in charge of the “pay for the experiement.” I could be wrong. But based on what I know of compensation for experiements, this is my assumption. 🙂

    Like

    Reply

    1. “And the pay is something like $100.00-$200.00. And it’s considered a regular–like the experimentees have to fill out a W2 etc etc.”

      – Only if experiments can cause damage to your health. I took part in quite a few experiments like the one in the article (out of curiosity) and there was no pay involved. Once I was offered $5 for participation. A friend at Yale participated in an experiment where he had to get severely drunk several times in the course of several weeks. The alcohol was provided but there was no payment and now W2s.

      Do you really think the indigenous people of Peru were asked to fill out paperwork to accompany this experiment?

      Like

      Reply

      1. // Only if experiments can cause damage to your health.

        That’s how things were at your university. In Israel I saw offers to pay for your time, even if you only fill out paperwork. Sometimes individual students asked people in the library to fill something (short!) for free, but for pay is usual too.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “That’s how things were at your university.”

          – As you know, I’m closely familiar with 5 different universities.

          “In Israel I saw offers to pay for your time, even if you only fill out paperwork. Sometimes individual students asked people in the library to fill something (short!) for free, but for pay is usual too”

          – $100-200??? Or for $5-15?

          Like

          Reply

      2. More in $5-15 range.

        // Sp what is the conclusion? Do people agree they would have also refused the money to punish the giver?

        In a repeated game, yes 100%. In a one time game: if somebody literally offered me 1 shekel out of 100 in the 1st stage of the game, I would have declined in the 2nd stage.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “In a repeated game, yes 100%. In a one time game: if somebody literally offered me 1 shekel out of 100 in the 1st stage of the game, I would have declined in the 2nd stage.”

          – I don’t understand where you are finding several stages or the idea of a payment for playing in the linked article. All I’m discussing is the game described in the article. People refused without any second stages.

          Like

          Reply

  5. OK, I’m American, born and bred, and I don’t worship money, and I think this game and the idea of “fairness” the people who came up with are both incomprehensible. I’m with you, Clarissa: if someone gave me any amount of money, no matter how small, of their own free will and for no reason other than they wanted to give it to me, I’d take it and be grateful.

    Like

    Reply

  6. “Sp what is the conclusion? Do people agree they would have also refused the money to punish the giver?”

    I would like to know exactly what words were used in the instructions. Absent explicit clarification to the contrary I don’t think most Americans are going to perceive the first participant as a ‘giver’ but rather a person put in charge of distributing the money. That is the money doesn’t all ‘belong’ to the first participant (or the experimenters could not require that any of it be shared at all).

    If the partipants perceive the money as a windfall to be shared (with one party having a little more say than the other) then of course the party with less say will expect something like an equitable distribution and would rather have nothing than accept civic injustice.

    If the participants view the money as sheer blind luck by capricious fate then any money at all is okay (especially if in a particular cultural milieu it’s normal to expect life’s perks to be very unequally distributed).

    Like

    Reply

    1. “If the partipants perceive the money as a windfall to be shared (with one party having a little more say than the other) then of course the party with less say will expect something like an equitable distribution and would rather have nothing than accept civic injustice.”

      – I must be from a different planet – or an indigenous tribe of the Amazon – because I will never understand this way of thinking.

      I had no idea people really thought this way. I now feel a profound need to ask everybody I know. It begins to seem that I will discover very unexpected things.

      Like

      Reply

      3. To confuse you further, (just speaking for myself here) if the first section were some sort of competition and then it’s understood that the winner has to share some of the prize then my expectations for what would be equitable would radically change.
        As a nice non-confrontational kind of person in the winner position I’d probably offer up to 20 % (and would accept 10 % in the loser position). (wild guestimates).

        The twin (sometimes conflicting) ideas of merit and equity have traditionally been _the_ American values. While the country and its citizens often have often failed to live up to them, in many ways they remain important ideals that are worth pursuing for their own sake. They also help create the kind of culture/country that other people want to immigrate to.

        Like

        Reply

        1. I think that my position is a lot less filled with distrust and envy than the one of a person who refuses money just to spite an unknown person. Where exactly do you find distrust and envy in what I would do???

          Like

          Reply

  7. Because a 50% income tax isn’t the same as equally sharing a windfall. The situations are very different on numerous levels.

    Like

    Reply

      2. // If your mother or sister won a huge amount of money in a lottery

        1) It’s a very different situation.

        2) If that experiment involved “a huge amount”, people would agree to 1% of $1000 too, I am sure.

        Like

        Reply

        1. “// If your mother or sister won a huge amount of money in a lottery

          1) It’s a very different situation.

          2) If that experiment involved “a huge amount”, people would agree to 1% of $1000 too, I am sure.”

          – OK, if your friend won $30, then.

          Like

          Reply

      3. If they won it without any connection to me, it’s one thing. If *I* helped them to win (in experiment, help = accepting the offer), it’s a totally different situation.

        Like

        Reply

  8. I guess I’m really not American. I’d just be happy with any amount, and I wouldn’t be fussed enough to deprive the other person of their money in that experiment.
    The whole notion of “testing” this alleged American fairness just makes me picture a personification of America in front of a looking glass. “Magic Mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?” 🙂

    Like

    Reply

  9. You’re mostly pointing out design flaws in the experiement now. Most people in the experiment in the US will have some meta-awareness of the experiment as an experiment (whether or not they should) and will probably be thinking of it as some kind of exercise in decision making which will trigger a lot of self-aware fairness buttons in their behavior.

    The Machiguenga may or may not perceive it that way. My working assumption would be that they’re perceiving it as more random insane shit that outsiders who have more power than they do are engaging in for whatever random, insane reasons these outsiders have. Getting some random amount of money probably seems like one of the less intrusive weird things done to them.

    Like

    Reply

  10. Two sets of instructions.

    1. We’re going to give you $100 but you have to offer part of it to another person first. if they don’t think you’re offering them enough then neither of you get anything.

    2. You have to distribute this $100 between yourself and another person. If the other person thinks your distribution is unfair then neither of you gets anything.

    These kinds of different language choices can have a big effect on behavior.

    Like

    Reply

  11. I don’t see it as an experiment about “fairness” at all, but about game strategy. In other words, a very, very risk averse player will go with the 50/50 split, on the grounds that they are anticipating that the other player would never refuse that and go away with nothing.

    Other factors that intervene here is the understanding of such games and experiments, which are more frequently conducted in certain cultures than others. It is very unclear to me what is exactly being “tested” here. Fairness? Game-playing itself? A certain kind of hypothetical or abstract style of thought developed through the contemplation of games like this?

    In short, typically idiotic social-psychology research. Why is that even a legitimate academic field?

    Like

    Reply

        1. ” Since an individual who rejects a positive offer is choosing to get nothing rather than something, that individual must not be acting solely to maximize his economic gain, unless one incorporates economic applications of social, psychological, and methodological factors (such as the observer effect).[citation needed] Several attempts have been made to explain this behavior. Some suggest that individuals are maximizing their expected utility, but money does not translate directly into expected utility.[5] Perhaps individuals get some psychological benefit from engaging in punishment or receive some psychological harm from accepting a low offer.”

          – So much effort to conclude that Marxism does not work and people are not motivated by money.

          Like

          Reply

  12. I have observed that Europeans whom I know personally seem to think it is reasonable to hate people from other races, ethnic groups or social classes. For example, I know many people from different countries of Europe who think it is appropriate to hate Jews and Gypsies. Many Americans are horrified by this, including me. (No doubt many other Americans have the same feelings and hide them.)

    This is just personal experience, as I say, but if it is a real difference, then people who belong to some outlying group or other might have a better time in the U. S.

    Like

    Reply

    1. My colleague in Germanic studies has received so many threats as a result of teaching a course on the Holocaust that a police officer had to sit in on her classes. She was also almost denied tenure because, according to the Dean, “We can’t tell the burgers in the neighboring villages that a Jew will be teaching their language to their children.”

      At the same time, it is true that the US has handled the immigration much much better than Western Europe. Europeans, it seems, can send people out but can’t receive anybody unproblematically.

      Like

      Reply

      1. We have more experience with mass immigration. That experience wasn’t obtained painlessly, and of course we still have a way to go. I’m optimistic about Europe’s long-term prognosis, even if maybe I shouldn’t be.

        Like

        Reply

  13. Does the test measure fairness or envy?

    In many tribal-based communities, one need only mention that one is hungry to receive something. There are no abstract calculations involved, just a reflexive reaction to need.

    Like

    Reply

      1. Oh yes, because perhaps you would see them as an authority figure and therefore fear to punish them?

        Seriously, that whole mode of reasoning has a kind of logic to it, but it is a logic based on a different structure of the psyche than the one I have. That is why I said before, I tried to adapt to it and get inside the peculiar form of “logic”, but it is not possible to do that unless your psyche is structured in that way from the beginning. It is interesting that I have also had my generosity called into question in the past, as if it were intended as a form of manipulation. I don’t do that, but if the suggestion is expressed strongly enough, one might find oneself questioning one’s motives by losing the visceral sense of one’s original impulse. Then one is cast into the wilderness for a while, and this can be very confusing.

        I think the assumption that all behavior must necessarily have an instrumental purpose is very questionable. There is a lot of behavior that simply “is”. For instance, if I am in an exuberant mood, I spread it around. My attitudes and responses are not intended as psychological levers.

        A similar and related issue is the notion that is prevalent within Western culture, that one can manage others through “psychology”. I have investigated this notion of having managerial power through ‘psychology’ back and forth, up and down. I once thought there was something to it, but now I have abandoned any mechanistic psychology as totally spurious. In any case, any advice I have ever been given as to how to make my way in the world or improve my standing through psychological tactics and methods has not benefited me at all. I just can’t get myself into an instrumental frame of mind sufficiently — or I do for a little while, but that is not a natural way of thinking for me and I soon drop out of it again.

        What is most interesting, however, is that when I maintain the instrumental form of logic, people think I am one of them and reasonable and decent. When I revert to simply BEING and giving and receiving at will, I am suddenly dubious and suspicious and accused of having hidden agendas. In actual fact, when I lose any agendas, I am accused of having them.

        It’s perplexing, but I’ve decided the best I can do is to associate only with people who think like me. IN fact, at the point when I realized my whole cultural assimilation project was hopeless, I sought out and found a lot of Zimbabwean acquaintances and friends. They think much more like I do — without the instrumental reason aspect that I cannot understand from the inside-out. I enjoy that because it reassures me I’m not crazy.

        Like

        Reply

    2. “In many tribal-based communities, one need only mention that one is hungry to receive something. There are no abstract calculations involved, just a reflexive reaction to need.”

      – It isn’t like this is different in developed societies.

      Like

      Reply

    3. “Does the test measure fairness or envy?”

      I don’t think it measures much of anything beyond willingness to cooperate in a psychological experiment in laboratory conditions. The Machiguenga response is, I think, as much about following the path of least inconvenience with intrusive outsider busybodies.

      “I was accused of envy”

      Huh? My posting a link to the limited good was about a probable general cultural attitude in the Ukraine, not a bit of sidewalk psychoanalysis. I was assuming that that kind of worldview was one of the things you were trying to get away from.

      Like

      Reply

  14. The experiment is strange, and the beliefs its results are alleged to contest are strange, and the article itself is strange. All these people need to go on study abroad or immersion or something.

    Like

    Reply

  18. So you said that you would accept any amount of money. But how much would you offer? I would offer 50/50–partly because I guess I would see it as getting paid for my time. And I would want to dsitrbute teh pay equitably. (LIke you though, I would accept any amount of money. I just can’t get worked up about money.)

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to cliff arroyo Cancel reply