Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
They say that all’s fair in love and war. But when it comes to making a deal, people have very definite ideas about what’s fair: a recent study found that people will let a basic physiological need go unfulfilled rather than accept an unfair transaction.
Researchers induced either moderate or severe thirst in volunteers. Then pairs of thirsty subjects were asked to split a bottle of water.
Unbeknownst to the participants, the experiment was arranged so that everyone thought they’d be receiving less water than their opponent was getting. And a majority of the participants—even the very thirsty ones—rejected the apparently unfair offer. Meaning that neither they nor their partner got to take a drink.
The research is in the journal Scientific Reports. [Nicholas D. Wright et al., Human responses to unfairness with primary rewards and their biological limits]
Past research has shown that humans will also reject unfair offers in games played for money. This study was the first to show that people react in the same way when bargaining for a necessity. Nobody ever said life was fair—but we still want it to be.
—Amy Kraft
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
4 Comments
Add CommentNo mention is made of the nationality of the participating subjects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI question whether you'd get the same results with subjects not American. The deep level indoctrination of certain socio-cultural traits must, of necessity, play a role in the response of the subjects.
I wonder also whether you'd get the same results if the amounts of water offered were in large quantities; i.e. with the lesser amount far exceeding the immediate need of the subject.
.
Gee! You mean some people actually place ethics above their personal preservation and comfort! Incredible! Amazing! They must be an endangered species!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut that's not ethics, it's just plain stupidity and it certainly would make them an endangered species if it was carried into extreme situations. The only rational response to 'I'd rather die than take an unfair deal" is "Oh, ok then!" There is nothing ethical about cutting your nose off to spite your face. It's essentially emotional/moral blackmail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd the truth is we know that this is not carried into real life. A shop in the centre of a desert can charge what it likes for water in the absolutely secure knowledge that scarcity and need do in fact affect the 'value' of a resource. Monopolies and oligarchies have traded on this simple truth since the very invention of 'the deal'.
There can come a point where, no matter what kind of graphs or statistics or disclaimers "scientists" provide, it will be obvious just from the outlandishness of their assertions that they are lying. We are supposed to believe that, in extreme thirst, someone will forego water simply because they will get less than the other person. And, yet, "science" devotees eager to deny the existence of God, soul, spirit or conscience have said for decades things like that human morality and ethics crumbles after only a short period of physical privation, but, now, we are supposed to believe that they believe that people in extreme, even life threatening, thirst will forego water if it means another will get more. The very fact that the "researchers" are saying that people in extreme thirst necessarily turned down water even though they found others may be getting more calls everything they say into extreme question. Frankly, this sounds like laying the groundwork for saying the public are so shallow and contemptuous that they would forego a necessity to avoid seeing someone else get more. As a result, they will "argue", the people are too craven for their own good! It's not that they don't want to see an unfairness done, they just don't want to see those who earned big money get that big money. It's not that the corporate rich rob the "rank and file", the "rank and file" simply resent the rich getting big money! Having money doled out partly to the "rank and file", mostly to the bosses, raises resentment, so the "rank and file" should not be put in a position to make that kind of choice. Only the rich must be allowed to have money, the "rank and file" must never be allowed to have money. Just because someone claims to be a "scientist" does not automatically eliminate the possibility, or even the probability that they will lie or act to facilitate a malignant machination. This is ignored by too many people. How do we know, for example, that the thirsty people making the decision weren't offered only a thimbleful while the other would get a gallon?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this