1. Fairness and the Development of Inequality Acceptance
Tatiana Lane & Maleny Taylor

2. Almas, I., et al. (2010). “” Science, 328, 1176.
Humans have been known to be willing to sacrifice so that they can eradicate inequalities they deem as unfair.
Fundamental disagreements have emerged between people on what they believe to be a fair distribution.

3. Questions
They were interested as to when people begin to distinguish between individual achievements and random luck when considering how rewards should be properly distributed.
They also were interested to know if/when efficiency considerations are taken into account.

4. Goal
Wanted to establish the importance of self-interest and fairness considerations at different grade levels
importance of diff. fairness views at diff. grade levels
Assumptions: children make a trade-off between two motives: 1) self-interest and 2) fairness
May differ in both in their levels of self-interest and what they consider fair

5. Methods Computer based experiment Use of the Dictator Game
Dictator: given an amount of $ to distribute between self and one other person
Norwegian students grade 5-13
5th: fn = 46; mn: = 58; total n: = 104
7th: fn = 56; mn: = 51; total n: = 107
9th: fn = 42; mn: = 51; total n: = 93
11th: fn = 61; mn: 36; total n: = 97
13th: fn = 50; mn: = 35; total n: = 85

6. Part 1 Modified: Production Phase introduced (45 minutes)
Participants could move freely between 2 websites
Production site (collect points)
Entertainment site (games, videos, cartoons, pictures)
Subjects given info. on production/distribution phases before starting experiment
Money distributed was earned and depended on individual achievements and luck (based off production phase and random assignment)

7. Part 1: Distribution Randomly assigned: high or low price per point
High: 0.40 NOK (US ~ 8 cents) NOK - Norwegian Krone currency
Low: 0.02 NOK (US ~ 4 cents)
Total income for the two participants is unaffected by how the money is distributed.
i.e., there is no fairness argument that can justify an unequal division, because distribution could have caused more or less $ to be added to the total $ in the end → there is NO justification for the dictator to split the money unfairly (no multiplier)

8. Part 1: Distribution Randomly matched with another of same grade
Participants given info. about time spent on production site, # of points earned, the price (high or low)
Asked to decide how much of the total income (between the two) to take for themselves

9. Sources of Inequality
Production: individual achievements on the during the production phase
Luck: random assignment of value per point

10. Results: Part 1 Average share of money given to partner was very high
45% for whole sample
No change in selfishness between grade levels
No statistical differences between gender
Important: Increase in acceptance of inequalities reflecting differences in production as age increased
Older you are, more likely to differentiate on the basis of individual achievements (sharpest 5th-7th; 7th-13th)

11. Results: Part 1 - Fairness Views
Strict egalitarians
any inequality is unfair
large majority of the 5th graders
Meritocrats
justifies inequalities based on production
dominant in late adolescence
almost none in grade 5
Libertarians
justifies all inequalities in earnings
stable across grade levels

13. Part 2
Dictator is given a specific # of points to distribute between self and one other person (no production phase)
Efficiency considerations were made:
Points given to the other person would earn more for that other person, than points could earn for the dictator
The dictator could maximize the total income (most efficient) between the two by giving away all points to the other participant.

14. Part 2
Efficiency consideration: Total amount of money that could be generated between two participants
Keep in mind, that even though this refers to more $ for the group of 2, the money does not get split later, after the distribution.

15. Part 2
Dictator got 1 NOK for each point given to partner, and 1 NOK for each point given to self
Randomly paired with person of same grade level
Baseline: 1 point X 1 NOK for partner
efficiency coefficient plays no role in baseline
1 point X 2 = 2 NOK for partner
1 point X 3 = 3 NOK for partner
1 point X 4 = 4 NOK for partner
efficiency coefficient is increasing salient

16. Results: Part 2
Effect of multiplier was significant for males in late adolescence and noticeable for females in 13th grade.
5th & 7th graders did not rely on efficiency considerations
Significant increase in the coefficient from 5th-13th
Important: older participants were more likely to differentiate on the basis of efficiency considerations.

18. Summary
Procedure:
Part 1: Modified dictator game to have a production and distribution phase
Goal: How luck and achievements (production) influenced fairness views
Part 2: Distribution phase with multipliers 1,2,3,4 to create efficiency considerations; no production phase
Goal: How and when students take efficiency considerations into account at different grade levels.

19. Summary
Results:
Part 1: Increase in age showed an increase in importance of individual achievements, luck was not important.
Part 2: As males enter adolescence, efficiency considerations play an increasingly important role.
females do not seem to take EC into play until late adolescence (~13th grade)

20. Conclusions Part 1: Egalitarians - younger (most 5th graders)
Meritocrats - towards adolescence (most adolescents)
Libertarians - stable (less than other two groups)
Part 2:
Efficiency considerations developed later in life than do differentiations based individual achievements.
Conclusion:
Fairness views change during adolescence due to a combination of cognitive maturation and social experiences.

21. Limitations
Efficiency Coefficient: the dictator will only get 1 NOK per point no matter how they distribute.
No incentive to give the other person the point unless:
1) they care about generating more total money for their “group”
2) they really want the other person to have more money.
No way for dictator to earn more money
P values!!!! → drove me quite crazy