Equity Preferences in Relation to Culture

Comparing India, Peru, and the US

Culture and Fairness Concern for fairness appears universal Ways people judge things to be fair differs

across cultures Studied in situations where people are

asked to distribute resources Recall the Ultimatum game, Dictator game,

Prisoner’s dilemma, Public goods game, etc What are the allocation rules used?

Allocation Rules Equity

Based on individual contribution Equality

Equal sharing regardless of contribution Need

Based on who needs them the most Reciprocity

‘Tit for tat’, based on what others have done for you Norms

What is generally accepted in society

Which Allocation Rule is Most Fair?

Berman et al (1985) Scenario presented to Indian and American adults

about how to distribute a bonus between two employees, one of whom had excellent work performance and an adequate economic situation and the other who had average work performance but a poor financial situation due to illness in the family. How should they divide the bonus money?

Find USA predominant strategy is based on equity India predominant strategy is based on need

Henrich et al (2010) Looked at 15 mostly small scale societies, played the

dictator game with a windfall resource of one day’s wage

Find US responses were not typical, but were based on an

equity notion of fairness The perception of fairness based on equity was more

common in market integrated societies (high market integration means a large proportion of food is bought in stores), and in societies where a world religion was practiced (Islam or Christianity).

Determination of Allocation Rules from Cultural

Perspective Personal Characteristics

What are the beliefs, values, experiences of the individual? Does the individual subscribe to cultural models of collectivism/individualism?

Situational Factors Is the allocation being done in a work situation, family

context, on basis of gender? Who is dividing resources and what is their relationship to the recipient? Different situations often result in different allocation rules even within the same cultural context

Nature of the resources How scarce and valued are the resources being allocated?

Collectivism/Individualism

Cultural ways of understanding and structuring independence (autonomous being) and interdependence (connected with others) – Hofstede (1980)

Traditionally thought of as a dichotomy and applied to cultures, characterizing them as individualistic (primarily oriented toward individualistic), or collectivist (primarily oriented toward interdependence)

In contemporary theory cultures seen to be heterogenous, dynamic and complex One or other may dominate, but usually both are

important to some degree

Collectivism/Individualism

European-American considered individualistic Promoting goals of self-expression, self-fulfillment,

individual choices, defining self separate from others

All other cultures (Asian studied most) considered collectivist Promoting goals of conformity, social cohesion,

concern for others’ needs, pursuing group interests, defining self in relation to others

What Do We Know About India?

Traditional Parents foster obedience, low independence, low innovation,

perception of external control is high Collectivist

Focus on maintaining interpersonal harmony, cooperation, sharing, concern for others

Caste system Power differential is high, along the lines of caste, gender, age

and seniority, stress obedience to authority, conformity to norms

Scarce resources Families own few material resources, food is valued and scarce,

perception of non-contingency in effort-outcome

What Do We Expect in Resource Allocation Strategies

in India? High preference for allocating according to need and

equality Because of the strong concern for maintaining interpersonal

harmony and in concern for others High preference for self-interest strategy of allocation

Because of scarcity of the resource (in this case candy) Low preference for merit-based allocation such as equity

Perception that effort does not coincide with gain – eg, may work hard in agriculture and lose all in floods

The rule applied likely differs depending on the situation (eg., work, family, power differential – caste, elder, gender)

What Do We Know About Peru?

Between Traditional and Contemporary: Dynamic Parents foster obedience, independence, perception of external

control is high Collectivist/Individualistic: Complex

Focus on maintaining interpersonal harmony, cooperation, sharing, concern for others, with strong drive to get ahead oneself

Power Differential Power differential is high, along the lines of gender, age and

seniority, stress obedience to authority, conformity to norms Scarce resources

Families own modest material resources, food is valued and obtained through much effort, perception of contingency in effort-outcome, children have access to candy

What Do We Expect in Resource Allocation Strategies

in Peru? High preference for allocating according to equality

Because of the strong concern for maintaining interpersonal harmony and in concern for others

Low preference for self-interest strategy of allocation Because resource (in this case candy) not scarce

High preference for merit-based allocation such as equity Perception that effort does coincide with gain – eg,

those who work hard are able to reap benefits

Exercise With these introductions to the structures of the

cultural settings (India, Peru) where the research was conducted, what would you predict about children who were dividing resources with another person in the following situations:1) Ultimatum Game

one child gets windfall of candy and is asked to divide with another child who can accept the offer, or reject it (if rejected no one gets anything)

Exercise2) Dictator Game

One child gets windfall of candy and divides withA) Unfamiliar child of same gender who has to acceptB) Unfamiliar child of opposite gender who has to

acceptC) Friend who has to acceptD) Parent who has to acceptE) Sibling who has to accept

Exercise3) What would you predict about children who were

dividing resources in the Dictator Game with another child in the following situations:A) A majority of the candy is non-special, a few pieces are

highly valued special candiesB) The resource is a food staple that is highly valued by the

parents but not by the child (eg., lentils)C) The resource is money (small coin – equivalent to a

penny) Children in India have very little experience at all with

money Children in Peru do have experience having pocket

money

Exercise4) Are our predictions based on cultural structures

supported by our findings?A) INDIAB) PERU

Looking at Our Results

Rejections of DI in India

Mean for age 6-7= 2 rejections/6 trials Mean for 8-9= 1.57 rejections/6 trials Our t-test was non-significant, telling us there is

no difference between these age groups

Conclusion: In this sample from India, children did not increase in rejections of DI as they aged

Rejections of AI in India

Mean for age 6-7= 0.75 rejections Mean for age 8-9= 1.62 rejections Again, no significant difference was found

Conclusion: In this sample from India, older children were not more likely to reject AI

Rejections of DI in Peru

Mean for age 6-7= 2.63 Mean for age 8-9= 4.69 Our t-test was significant, meaning there is a

difference between the older and younger children

Conclusion: In this sample from Peru, older children rejected DI significantly more times than younger children

Rejections of AI in Peru

Mean for age 6-7= 0.73 Mean for age 8-9= 1.00 Our t-test found no significant difference

between these ages

Conclusion: In Peru, older children were not more likely to reject AI than younger children.

Rejections of DI in India

6 to 7 8 to 90

1

2

3

4

5

6Disadvantageous Inequity

DI EqualDI Unequal

Age

Aver

age

Tria

ls R

ejec

ted

Rejections of AI in India

6 to 7 8 to 90

1

2

3

4

5

6Advantageous Inequity

AI EqualAI Unequal

Age

Aver

age

Tria

ls R

ejec

ted

Rejections of DI in Peru

6 to 7 8 to 90

1

2

3

4

5

6Disadvantageous Inequity

DI EqualDI Unequal

Age

Aver

age

Tria

ls R

ejec

ted

Note: Significant Difference

Rejections of AI in Peru

6 to 7 8 to 90

1

2

3

4

5

6Advantageous Inequity

AI EqualAI Unequal

Age

Aver

age

Tria

ls R

ejec

ted

Total DI Rejections Mean for India= 1.75 Mean for Peru= 3.52 Our t-test revealed a significant difference

between the two countries

Conclusion: Peruvian children rejected more DI trials than did Indian children

Total AI Rejections Mean for India= 1.20 Mean for Peru= 0.88 Our t-test showed no significant difference

between countries

Conclusion: Peruvian and Indian children did not differ in their rejections of AI.

DI Rejections across Cultures

Rejecting DI: U.S. : Increases with age Peru: Increases with ageHowever: India: Stays relatively low across ages

DI Rejections across Cultures

US Peru India0

1

2

3

4

5

6Disadvantageous Inequity

6-7 Years8-9 Years

Country

Aver

age

Tria

ls R

ejec

ted

AI Rejections across Cultures

Rejecting AI: U.S.: Significant increase around age 8However: Peru: Stays relatively low across ages India: Stays relatively low across ages

AI Rejections across Cultures

US Peru India0

1

2

3

4

5

6Advantageous Inequity

6-7 Years8-9 Years

Country

Aver

age

Tria

ls R

ejec

ted

Overall Findings For DI, Peru follows the trend of the US

When they are getting the bad end of the deal, rejections increase with age.

India does not follow this trend; they show low rejections of DI regardless of age.

For AI, Peru and India do not follow the trend of the US. In the US, AI rejections increased significantly at age 8 Peruvians and Indians rarely rejected trials that were in

their favor, regardless of age