HOW often have you seen rich people take to the streets, shouting that they're earning too much? No, I thought not. Protesters are typically blue-collar workers yelling that the minimum wage has to go up, or that their jobs shouldn't go overseas. Lately, however, we have been hearing a new chorus, exclaiming that none of those fat cats on Wall Street or the City should be compensated for bad behaviour. No golden parachutes for those greedy bloodsuckers!
Concern about fairness is always asymmetrical (stronger in the poor than the rich), and the underlying emotions aren't half as lofty as the ideal itself. It is true to say that our sense of fairness seldom transcends self-interest, that it is seldom concerned with something larger than ourselves. Look at how it starts in life. Children react to the slightest discrepancy in the size of their slice of pizza compared to their sibling's. Their shouts of "That's not fair!" never transcend their own desires.
We're all for fair play so long as it helps us. There's even a biblical parable about this, in which the owner of a vineyard rounded up labourers at different times of the day. Early in the morning, he went out to find labourers, offering each 1 denarius. But he offered the same to those hired later in the day. The workers hired first thing in the morning expected to get more since they had worked through the heat of the day, yet the owner didn't feel he owed them any more than he had originally promised.
That this sense of unfairness may turn out to be quite ancient in evolutionary terms as well became clear when graduate student Sarah Brosnan and I discovered it in monkeys. While testing pairs of capuchin monkeys, we noticed how much they disliked seeing their partner get a better deal. At first, this was just an impression based on their refusal to participate in our tests. But then we realised that economists had given these reactions the fancy label of "inequity aversion," which they had turned into a topic of academic debate. This debate revolved entirely around human behaviour, but what if monkeys showed the same aversion?
We would offer a pebble to one of the pair and then hold out a hand so that the monkey could give it back in exchange for a cucumber slice. Alternating between them, both monkeys would happily barter 25 times in a row. The atmosphere turned sour, however, as soon as we introduced inequity. One monkey would still receive cucumber, while its partner now enjoyed grapes, a favourite food with monkeys. While that monkey had no problem, the one still working for cucumber would lose interest. Worse, seeing its partner with juicy grapes, this monkey would get agitated, hurl the pebbles out of the test chamber, sometimes even those measly cucumber slices. A food normally devoured with gusto had become distasteful.
Discarding perfectly fine food simply because someone else is getting something better resembles the way we reject an unfair share of money or grumble about an agreed-upon rate of pay. Where do these reactions come from? They probably evolved in the service of cooperation. Caring about what others get may seem petty and irrational, but in the long run it keeps one from being taken advantage of.
Had we merely mentioned emotions, such as "resentment" or "envy," our findings might have gone unnoticed. But since we saw no reason not to invoke the principle of inequity aversion, thought to relate to a sense of fairness, we drew the keen, somewhat baffled interest of philosophers, anthropologists and economists, who almost choked on the monkey comparison.
As it happened, our study came out around the time that there was public outcry about the multimillion dollar pay packages that are occasionally given out on Wall Street and elsewhere. Commentators couldn't resist contrasting human society with our monkeys, suggesting that we could learn a thing or two from them.
Our monkeys have not reached the point at which their sense of fairness stretches beyond egocentric interests - for example, the one who gets the grape never levels the outcome by giving it to the other - but in cooperative human societies, such as those in which men hunt large game, anthropologists have found great sensitivity to equal distribution. Sometimes, successful hunters aren't even allowed to carve up their own kill to prevent them from favouring their family. Without ever having heard calls for equality, these cultures are nevertheless keenly aware of the risk that inequity poses to the social fabric of their society.
The 17th-century political philosopher Thomas Hobbes noted in his Philosophical Rudiments that humanity is interested in justice "only for Peace's sake". Apes, as opposed to monkeys, may have an inkling of this connection. High-ranking male chimpanzees, for example, sometimes break up fights over food without taking any for themselves. There's even one observation of a bonobo who worried about getting too much. During tests, a female received large amounts of milk and raisins, but could hardly miss the eyes of her friends on her, who were watching her from a short distance. After a while, she refused all rewards. Looking at the experimenter, she kept gesturing to the others until they were given a share of the goodies. Only then did she finish her stash.
- Like what you've just read?
- Don't miss out on the latest content from New Scientist.
- Get New Scientist magazine delivered to your door, plus unlimited access to the entire content of New Scientist online.
- Subscribe now and save
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
It looks quite clear to me that the researchers merely have discovered that other mammals like to receive the same pay for the same amount of work, or the same value of trade for a particular amount of 'money'. From the description of the experiment, there was nothing to extrapolate to 'conspicuous consumption' or other nonsense.
Another waste of someone else's property on a research grant.
"It looks quite clear to me that the researchers merely have discovered that other mammals like to receive the same pay for the same amount of work,"
And this seems an unimportant finding to you? It implies that those animals have a sense of fairness, just as humans do, clearly indicating that this and probably other morality-related traits are evolved features. This has implications for human nature, and for how we can shape our societies.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
Pay Equity
Fri Nov 13 00:08:11 GMT 2009 by Dennis
http://freetubetv.net
When will people realize that this isn't surprising, other animals are just as cognitively advanced as we are.
Yes they have emotions,yes they seek revenge and have their own sense of justice and entitlement. I'm glad we're studying this, but the findings aren't ground breaking to anyone who's actually observed such creatures in the wild. Primates are highly intelligent beings, which is a shame considering the way they are treated in some zoos, and unfortunately even in entertainment venues like circuses :(
You work hard all your life, saving, taking responsibility for yourself and then the "moral" socialists come along and tell the feckless, thriftless, culture-less, amoral masses that "wealth redistribution" (euphemism) isn't theft.
Where's the justice in that?
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
The British in their previous efforts to take over the world actually took anything of value and many nations with no resources and no way of competing in a competing economic market.
I've lived an extremely privileged life and have i done more than anyone else to deserve it? Hell no! i was born into a rich family, i am not in the least bit surprised people can feel anger and resentment towards that!
There's no reason in a society without money everyone couldn't have everything anyone else had! With machines doing the menial jobs and scientist, doctors and mathematicians not work for money and profit but for greater good and the satisfaction of enhancing your knowledge and fulfilling the desire to learn and flourish!
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
What's that got to do with monkeys?
if we had a resource based society with no monetary system and no profit (using technology to create everything in abundance all over the world, including food, clothing, shelter and transport. All of which we are easily capable of already especially if we work as one.) then there would be no feeling of inequality amongst anyone, no resentment and I believe no crime at all.
It's the way our society is run that is causing all the problems! The Venus Project is the future! Zeitgeist
steady, while zeitgeist was very good at explaining federal reserve systems, lies in certain mainstream religions and presenting some revolutionary technologies many will not have heard of, it's an extremely simplistic, un-academic project, that allows for too little concessions and can't decide if it's optimistic or disparaging of human nature. It presents itself as another "the right way" without nearly enough references to its sources to back it up. It also seems to completely ignore the fact that systems are not entities, people are entities who create systems. Blaming societal structures only gives people a defeatist mindset, as structures are just mental representations of how actual people relate.
there's little reason if the whole world was open and like minded that the Venus project wouldn't work. Zeitgeist is the political arm of the Venus Project trying to show people that our system is outdated and flawed.
"there's little reason if the whole world was open and like minded..."
Have you seen your flaw yet?
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
"if we had a resource based society with no monetary system and no profit (using technology to create everything in abundance all over the world, including food, clothing, shelter and transport. All of which we are easily capable of already especially if we work as one.) then there would be no feeling of inequality amongst anyone, no resentment and I believe no crime at all."
But the resources don't exist for everyone to own a Ferrari or a Mercedes. Therefore these cars wouldn't exist and everyone would own a Trabant or a 50cc scooter. Innovation would be stifled and we'd all be eating turnips and carrots. People need to aspire to something greater (and potentially available to them through hard work), or apathy would set in and we'd hardly ever progress.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.