1. FAIRNESS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INEQUALITY ACCEPTANCE Ingvild Almas, Alexander W. Cappelen, Erik O. Sorensen, and Bertil Tungodden

2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON ADULTS  Adults are motivated by fairness considerations and are willing to sacrifice personal gains in order to eliminate inequalities they view as unfair  With regards to unequal distribution of income, most adults view some inequalities as fair:  Differences in individual achievements  Efficiency considerations of what maximizes total benefits

3. EXAMPLE But I spent more time baking the cake! I like eating cake more than you! It’s my favorite! Anne: Efficiency Considerations Total benefits are maximized by giving her the largest share because she enjoys cake the most Carla: Individual Achievements She should have the largest share because her contribution to making the cake was the largest

4. PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON CHILDREN  With age, children tend to become less selfish in their reasoning and choices  With age, children tend to move from a strict egalitarian view toward fairness views that take into account individual contributions and circumstances

5. QUESTIONS FOR THIS STUDY  How do fairness views develop in children?  How do features of adults’ distributive behavior develop?  Distinguishing between achievements and luck  Taking efficiency considerations into account

6. METHODS  Computer-based experiment  Children in 5 th grade to 13 th grade  The Dictator Game:  “Dictator” assigned an amount of money to distribute between himself or herself and another person  Total income of the two participants is unaffected by how the money is distributed  No apparent fairness argument to justify unequal division of the money

7. METHODS: PART 1  Modified the dictator game: Money to be distributed was earned and depended on individual achievements and luck  Production phase: For 45 minutes, participants could move between 2 websites freely  Production site: Collect points by ticking off every appearance of a particular number on a sequence of screens filled with different three digit numbers  Entertainment site: View short videos or pictures, read cartoons, or play games

8. METHODS: PART 1  After production phase: participants randomly assigned to either high price per point (0.40 NOK = US ~$0.08 ) or a low price per point (0.20 NOK = US ~$0.04)  Introduced distinction between two sources of inequality:  Production – reflecting individual achievements  Earnings – partly reflecting luck in the random draw of prices

9. METHODS: PART 1  Distribution phase: Participants randomly matched in a sequence of pairs with participants at the same grade level

10. METHODS: PART 1  Distribution phase: Participants randomly matched in a sequence of pairs with participants at the same grade level

11. RESULTS: PART 1  Mean share given to the other participant: 45%  No statistically significant difference in mean share given between 5 th grade and 13 th grade  No evidence of change in selfishness from mid-childhood to late adolescence

12. RESULTS: PART 1  Found increase with age in the acceptance of inequalities reflecting differences in production  Older participants were much more likely to differentiate on the basis of individual achievements

13. ESTIMATED CHOICE MODEL  Assumed there were 3 fairness views in this situation:  Strict egalitarianism: finding all inequalities unfair  Meritocratism: justifying inequalities reflecting differences in production  Libertarianism: justifying all inequalities in earnings  Results using their estimated choice model:  Large majority of 5 th graders were strict egalitarians  Majority of participants in late adolescence were meritocrats  Share of libertarians stable across all grade levels

14. METHODS: PART 2  Studied inequality acceptance in situations involving efficiency considerations  Participants were given the task of distributing a number of points  Total benefits (income) would be maximized by giving all the points to the other participant  Participants explicitly informed that they would receive 1 NOK for each point kept for themselves, whereas 1 NOK given to the other participant would be scaled up by a multiplier

15. RESULTS: PART 2  Older participants more likely to differentiate on the basis of efficiency considerations  Effect of the multiplier was substantial for males in late adolescence and females in 13 th grade  Efficiency considerations played a more important role for males than females

16. DISCUSSION  Development of efficiency considerations takes place later in adolescence than differentiation on the basis of individual achievements  Children’s level of self-interest stable across adolescence  Fairness views change fundamentally across adolescence  Increased importance of the meritocratism fairness view  Sharp decrease in strict egalitarian fairness view  Libertarian fairness view stable throughout adolescence  Role of cognitive maturation and social experiences in shaping children’s fairness preferences

17. Haidt – Chapter 8, Note 51  Political equality rests on the Liberty/oppression foundation  Fairness/cheating foundation became primarily about proportionality rather than equality  Note 51: “Children generally like equality, until they near puberty, but as their social intelligence matures they stop being rigid egalitarians and start becoming proportionalists.”  “When a few members of a group contributed far more than the others – or, even more powerfully, when a few contributed nothing – most adults do not want to see the benefits distributed equally.”  People have “desires to protect their communities from cheaters, slackers, and free riders, who, if allowed to continue their ways without harassment, would cause others to stop cooperating, which would cause society to unravel.”