Read Online EVILICIOUS: Cruelty = Desire + Denial by Marc Hauser - Free Book Online
Authors: Marc Hauser
Ads: Link
child decided how to distribute a fixed amount of candy to his or her partner. In the
prosocial
game, the decider took either one candy and gave one to the partner or took one candy and gave nothing to the partner. If children are sensitive to inequities and want to share in order to make things fair, they should pick the 1-1 option; picking the 1-0 option doesn’t affect the decider, but dings the partner. In the
envy
game, the decider has a choice between 1-1 and 1-2. As in the prosocial game, the decider gets the same amount of candy with both options, but preserves equity with 1-1. Picking 1-1 also reveals that the child has an aversion to others having more, even when there is no personal cost. In the third,
sharing
game, the decider has a choice between 1-1 and 2-0. Here again, the decider gets candy in both cases, but the 2-0 option tempts the desire for more, both personally and relatively. On the one hand, a greedy child will want more candy, and so 2 wins over 1. But picking the 2-0 option also leads to a greater difference with the partner — critical for comparison shopping — while robbing them of an opportunity for any candy. If fairness prevails, deciders should pick 1-1. If selfishness prevails, motivated by competition, they should pick 2-0.
Fehr uncovered two key results. Across all three games, younger children played more selfishly than older children, but independently of age and the game played, all children played more fairly with familiar than unfamiliar schoolmates. These results, together with several other studies, show that children are sensitive to the distribution of goods at an early age, but with important developmental changes in play. There is a tendency for children to both recognize inequities early in life, but to act selfishly when possible. The envy game provides a beautiful illustration. When another child could receive more, children, especially young ones, rejected this option even though it wouldn’t cost them directly; the decider always gets just one candy in this game. Though no one has yet fully explained what causes this developmental shift from more to less selfishness, most agree that it is driven in part by maturation of brain regions guiding self-control, together with social factors that make young children increasingly aware of and sensitive to their own and others’ reputations. Young children are more impulsive and selfish, and this leads to higher levels of inequity when they are asked to distribute valuable goods. Fehr’s studies also show that playing fair is not just about the distribution of resources, but about who gets them. Early in life, children have already carved up the world into those they know and those they don’t. This division drives their thinking and feeling, and in cases like this, their sense of fairness. It is a division that I will discuss in greater detail in chapter 2 .
Fehr’s research, and the majority of studies on the child’s developing sense of fairness, focus on children living in large Western societies. Most of the work on fairness in adults is similarly focused on such societies. The precise structure of these societies may directly impact how individuals decide when to share, what commodities enter into the distribution, and whether sharing depends on effort invested, needs, or power. As noted in the last section, those who support an egalitarian society are more likely to feel empathy toward those in pain than those who support a hierarchical society. Individuals who are more empathic are also more altruistic. Hunter-gatherer societies tend to be more egalitarian, and highly cooperative. These differences predict further differences in how those living in small-scale societies, including the hunter-gatherers and subsistence farmers of Africa, Asia, and South America, should respond to unfair exchanges, and thus, whether they envy those who have more. If envy is lower in these societies, individuals should be less bothered
prosocial
game, the decider took either one candy and gave one to the partner or took one candy and gave nothing to the partner. If children are sensitive to inequities and want to share in order to make things fair, they should pick the 1-1 option; picking the 1-0 option doesn’t affect the decider, but dings the partner. In the
envy
game, the decider has a choice between 1-1 and 1-2. As in the prosocial game, the decider gets the same amount of candy with both options, but preserves equity with 1-1. Picking 1-1 also reveals that the child has an aversion to others having more, even when there is no personal cost. In the third,
sharing
game, the decider has a choice between 1-1 and 2-0. Here again, the decider gets candy in both cases, but the 2-0 option tempts the desire for more, both personally and relatively. On the one hand, a greedy child will want more candy, and so 2 wins over 1. But picking the 2-0 option also leads to a greater difference with the partner — critical for comparison shopping — while robbing them of an opportunity for any candy. If fairness prevails, deciders should pick 1-1. If selfishness prevails, motivated by competition, they should pick 2-0.
Fehr uncovered two key results. Across all three games, younger children played more selfishly than older children, but independently of age and the game played, all children played more fairly with familiar than unfamiliar schoolmates. These results, together with several other studies, show that children are sensitive to the distribution of goods at an early age, but with important developmental changes in play. There is a tendency for children to both recognize inequities early in life, but to act selfishly when possible. The envy game provides a beautiful illustration. When another child could receive more, children, especially young ones, rejected this option even though it wouldn’t cost them directly; the decider always gets just one candy in this game. Though no one has yet fully explained what causes this developmental shift from more to less selfishness, most agree that it is driven in part by maturation of brain regions guiding self-control, together with social factors that make young children increasingly aware of and sensitive to their own and others’ reputations. Young children are more impulsive and selfish, and this leads to higher levels of inequity when they are asked to distribute valuable goods. Fehr’s studies also show that playing fair is not just about the distribution of resources, but about who gets them. Early in life, children have already carved up the world into those they know and those they don’t. This division drives their thinking and feeling, and in cases like this, their sense of fairness. It is a division that I will discuss in greater detail in chapter 2 .
Fehr’s research, and the majority of studies on the child’s developing sense of fairness, focus on children living in large Western societies. Most of the work on fairness in adults is similarly focused on such societies. The precise structure of these societies may directly impact how individuals decide when to share, what commodities enter into the distribution, and whether sharing depends on effort invested, needs, or power. As noted in the last section, those who support an egalitarian society are more likely to feel empathy toward those in pain than those who support a hierarchical society. Individuals who are more empathic are also more altruistic. Hunter-gatherer societies tend to be more egalitarian, and highly cooperative. These differences predict further differences in how those living in small-scale societies, including the hunter-gatherers and subsistence farmers of Africa, Asia, and South America, should respond to unfair exchanges, and thus, whether they envy those who have more. If envy is lower in these societies, individuals should be less bothered
Similar Books
