SSJ Week 1- Starmans et al, 2017

What’s Starmans et al. generally about?

• The psychological distinction between equality (everyone gets the same amount) and fairness (everyone gets what they deserve)

• People naturally prefer fairness, even when it results in inequality

What do Starmans et al say about inequality and unfairness? (Introduction)

• People across various cultures and political spectrums prefer unequal societies, when asked about the ideal distribution of wealth)

• People aren’t bothered by inequality itself, but by economic unfairness

What happens when fairness and equality clash? (Starmans et al)

In this case, people will choose “fair inequality” over “unfair equality”

What do Starmans et al say about an equality bias in the lab?

Studies have found:

• Universal desire for more equal pay

• Egalitarian motives in humans

• Egalitarianism in young children

• Equality trumps reciprocity

Lab study in which subjects divide equally among strangers (Starmans et al):

People may even choose an outcome where everyone gets less, but the same

• They’re willing to pay to punish those who distribute unequally

Lab studies about dividing with kids 3-6 years old: (Starmans et al)

• Kids want to divide equally among third parties

• 6 year olds rather throw things away than distribute unequally

What does research in the real world show? (Starmans et al)

People don’t want total equality

• Participants designed a perfect society → top 20% owned significantly more than the bottom 20%

• Preference for inequality was found in 16 countries, across the whole political spectrum

• People exhibit a desire for unequality: not too equal, but not too unequal

What do Starmans et al say about fairness in the lab?

Lab equality bias: is often the result of fairness and equality coinciding → no one put in more work or needs more resources

• Merit: if one child works harder, 6 year olds believe they should receive more

• Helpful puppets got more rewards than mean ones

• Adults and kids accep unequal outcomes if they result from a fair, random procedure (coin flip, spinner etc)

What do Starmans et al say about fairness in the real world?

In real life, people variate in effort, ability and moral deservingness

• A preference for fairness leads people to favor unequal outcomes that reflect these differences

• Public discontent is better predicted by beliefs about the unfairness of wealth allocation, than by the inequality level itself

• Cultures and political groups differ on which resources (education, healthcare etc) should be equal rights, regardless of merit

2 non-fairness motivations for inequality (Starmans et al):

• Selfishness: people seek relative advantage (having more than someone else) instead of absolute wealth → relative advantage has a greater impact on happiness

• Motivation and mobility → people see inequality as a motivating to work harder to improve themselves

  • Belief in meritocratic mobility

Why is fairness central? (Starmans et al)

Fairness is considered a universal foundation of morality and it evolved into:

• Constrain our natural selfishness + benefit the group

• Allowing individuals with different productivity levels to share benefit s proportionately → this is essential for human collaboration

Consequences of inequality (Starmans et al):

High inequality correlates with negative social outcomes: lower happiness, lower productivity, more homocides, social dysfunction

• It’s unclear if these effects are caused by inequality or by the perception of unfair inequality

Conclusions of Starmans et al:

There is no evidence that human have a general aversion to inequality

• We have an aversion toward unfairness and under certain circumstances this leads us to reject unequal distributions

  • In other circumstances it leads to favour unequal distributions

Main implications of Starmans et al:

• We should educate people with correct info on inequality and social mobility

  • People underestimate inequality and overestimate social mobility

• We should shift the focus to fairness (this is what people truly care about)

  • Researchers and policymakers should pull apart the concepts of (in)equality and (un)fairness