ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













The Primate Diaries

The Primate Diaries


Notes on science, politics, and history from a primate in the human zoo.
The Primate Diaries Home

The Gospel of Wealth Fails the Inequity Test in Primates

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



Author’s Note: The following originally appeared at ScienceBlogs.com and was subsequently a finalist in the 3 Quarks Daily Science Prize judged by Richard Dawkins.

"Andrew Carnegie" by Nathaniel Gold

"Andrew Carnegie" by Nathaniel Gold

Fairness is the basis of the social contract. As citizens we expect that when we contribute our fair share we should receive our just reward. When social benefits are handed out unequally or when prior agreements are not honored it represents a breach of trust. Based on this, Americans were justifiably outraged when, not just one, but two administrations bailed out the wealthiest institutions in the country while tens of thousands of homeowners (many of whom were victims of these same institutions) were evicted and left stranded. It smacked of favoritism, the corruption of politics by corporate money, and it was also just plain unfair. But isn’t that the way the world works? Isn’t it true, as we were so often told as children, that life is unfair?

The American financial tycoon Andrew Carnegie certainly thought so and today’s economic elite have followed his example. In 1889 he used a perverted form of Darwinism to argue for a “law of competition” that became the cornerstone of his economic vision. His was a world in which might made right and where being too big to fail wasn’t a liability, it was the key to success. In his “Gospel of Wealth”, Carnegie wrote that this natural law might be hard for the least among us but “it ensures the survival of the fittest in every department.”

We accept and welcome therefore, as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves, great inequality of environment, the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the hands of a few, and the law of competition between these, as being not only beneficial, but essential for the future progress of the race.

In other words, his answer was yes. Life is unfair and we’d better get used to it, social contract or no social contract.

While this perspective may be common among those primates who live in the concrete jungle of Wall Street, it doesn’t hold true for the natural world more generally. Darwin understood that competition was an important factor in evolution, but it wasn’t the only factor. Cooperation, sympathy, and fairness were equally important features in his vision for the evolution of life. In The Descent of Man he wrote, “Those communities which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring.”

By working cooperatively, by sharing resources fairly, and by ensuring that all members of society benefited, Darwin argued that early human societies would be more “fit” than those societies where members only cared about themselves. The Russian naturalist Peter Kropotkin championed this aspect of Darwin’s work and argued that mutual aid was essential for understanding the evolution of social mammals as a whole. In the time of Darwin and Kropotkin the research needed to verify these claims was in its infancy, but recent work has supported this vision of the natural world. However, one study in particular has added an additional plank to this growing edifice of knowledge, and the view from on top suggests that life, in contrast to what Carnegie believed, may not be so unfair after all.

According to research published in the journal Animal Behaviour (pdf here), fairness is not only essential to the human social contract, it also plays an important role in the lives of nonhuman primates more generally. Sarah F. Brosnan and colleagues conducted a series of behavioral tests with a colony of chimpanzees housed at the University of Texas in order to find out how they would respond when faced with an unfair distribution of resources. A previous study in the journal Nature by Brosnan and Frans de Waal found that capuchin monkeys would refuse a food item when they saw that another member of their group had received a more desired item at the same time (a grape instead of a slice of cucumber). Some individuals not only rejected the food, they even threw it back into the researchers’ face. The monkeys seemed to recognize that something was unfair and they responded accordingly. This raised the provocative question: can the basis of the social contract be found in our evolutionary cousins?

Chimpanzees are known to be highly individualistic where food is concerned, so Brosnan and colleagues sought to determine whether these earlier results could be replicated in a more competitive species. The researchers first trained all 16 chimpanzees to exchange an inedible token for a food reward and then assessed their food preferences (it turns out that chimpanzees always prefer grapes to a similarly sized piece of carrot). In this simple cash economy they came to understand that each token was worth one reward and they eagerly handed it over to the researchers in expectation. Once all chimps had made the association individually they were brought into the testing area in pairs where they were allowed to exchange their tokens for food so that researchers could gauge their responses when in the company of a group mate.

In the first trial both chimpanzees were given the same food reward when they exchanged their token (sometimes the high-value grape, other times the low-value piece of carrot). This served as the control test and was used for comparison in the trials that followed. In the second trial, what the researchers called the Inequity Test, only one member of the pair was given a grape while the other received a carrot. In a third variation, both individuals were shown a grape at first, but were then given carrots once they handed over their token. In each trial the researchers recorded the number of times that chimpanzees refused a food item and then compared this with the control test to determine if they behaved differently when receiving a different reward.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, chimpanzees behaved the same way that capuchins did and objected if they only received a carrot when their group mate was given a delicious grape for the same price. Out of 76 trials the chimpanzees were significantly more likely to refuse a carrot in these tests compared to times where both received the same low-value food reward (p = 0.004). Likewise, when both individuals received a carrot after first being shown a grape, they were significantly more likely to refuse than in cases where no expectation of a better reward had been presented. The bottom line was that if things weren’t fair a tantrum would ensue.

If this sounds eerily familiar, you’re right on the mark. Parents will testify to how careful they must be to make sure that siblings are always treated equally and fairly, and chimpanzees are known to have the cognitive abilities of three-year-old children. What these results suggest then is that chimpanzees have an expectation of fairness and will protest in cases where this expectation is not met. This existed both in cases where rewards were handed out unequally and when a prior agreement was not honored.

However, chimpanzees in this study went beyond the basic tenets of the social contract and demonstrated what could be considered the foundation of social solidarity. In 95 trials chimpanzees that received a grape were significantly more likely to refuse the high-value reward when their group mate only received a carrot (p = 0.008). Even those who benefitted from inequality recognized that the situation was unfair and they refused to enjoy their own reward if it meant someone else had to suffer. As the authors reported:

We unexpectedly found that chimpanzees were more likely to refuse a high-value grape when the other chimpanzee got a lower-value carrot than when the other chimpanzee also received a grape. . . This reaction was not seen in previous studies of inequity in primates, either among chimpanzees or among capuchin monkeys.

But in comparing this simple behavior in chimpanzees to the complexities of human ethics aren’t we really talking apples and oranges (or, perhaps more appropriately, carrots and grapes)? I don’t think so. When we were children we wouldn’t have understood that using financial derivatives to repackage subprime loans in order to resell them as AAA-rated securities was an unfair thing to do. Few of us today (including members of the commission charged with overseeing the financial services industry) can even understand that now. But we did know it was unfair when our sibling got a bigger piece of pie than we did. We began life with a general moral sense of what was fair and equitable and we built onto the framework from there. Chimpanzees, according to this study, appear to have a similar moral sense. The intricacies of what we judge to be fair or unfair would seem to have more to do with human cognitive complexity than anything intrinsically unique to our species. In other words, what we’re witnessing here is a difference of degree rather than kind.

What this also suggests is that we’ve been swindled. The Andrew Carnegies of the world have led us to believe that they are an exception to the social contract; fairness and equality may be fine for the little people, but for masters of industry it is best to leave such quaint ideas by the wayside. But he was as wrong about this as he was about the way that evolution operates. As we move to regulate financial markets it might be wise to consider Darwin’s understanding of human society and follow the lead of our ape cousins. By emphasizing cooperation and sympathy with other members of our society we stand a better chance of success than each of us working alone. But if the situation is unfair we should refuse to perpetuate it, even if that means giving up a larger share of the pie for ourselves.

Eric Michael Johnson About the Author: Eric Michael Johnson has a Master's degree in Evolutionary Anthropology focusing on great ape behavioral ecology. He is currently a doctoral student in the history of science at University of British Columbia looking at the interplay between evolutionary biology and politics.

Follow his work on Facebook and Google+. Follow on Twitter @primatediaries.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 11 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. dcummins 6:27 pm 12/6/2012

    There is ample research on the normativity of cooperation and fairness in the behavioral economics literature. A brief summary and discussion in evolutionary terms can be found here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/good-thinking/201206/does-it-pay-cooperate

    Here is a brief summary: In their 1981 Science paper, Axelrod and Hamilton noted “The theory of evolution is based on the struggle for life and the survival of the fittest. Yet cooperation is common between members of the same species and even between members of different species.”

    The difference between cooperation and coercion is fairness. The former requires it, the latter ignores it.

    A good deal of work on fairness in behavioral economics has been conducted since the publication of Axelrod and Hamilton’s classic paper in 1981. Dozens of studies have shown that people reward those who cooperate far more generously than they should and they punish those who behave selfishly far more severely than they should according to rational choice theory. In fact, they will frequently pay a penalty to obtain an opportunity to punish those who failed to cooperate. Third parties who simply observe the game do the same thing: They will pay a fee to punish behavior that appears to be purely self-interested. Even six-month-old infants prefer cartoon characters who are cooperative over those who behave selfishly. To accommodate results like these, economists have had to incorporate norms of fairness and reciprocity in their theories of economic behavior.

    Why do we seem to be “wired” with a bias toward cooperation? One answer is based on Trivers’ 1971 paper on reciprocal altruism: Cooperation can propagate through a population and become stable only if cheaters (those who don’t reciprocate) are excluded from future transactions. If cheating is tolerated, then cooperation vanishes. In other words, fairness and cooperation is what allowed us to survive in the long run.

    Link to this
  2. 2. sjfone 6:13 am 12/7/2012

    And thusly we will be one, big communal family.

    Link to this
  3. 3. TTLG 2:29 pm 12/7/2012

    I think these animals were fairly well fed. If they were hungry enough I am pretty sure they would have accepted unfairness, even if they did not like it. Which is how those in power justify their dealings: see, they accepted it, so it must be OK. The ones who object are just a bunch of malcontents, right?

    Link to this
  4. 4. ssm1959 2:48 pm 12/7/2012

    Interesting, but this is the wrong experiment. Give one subject a simple task with a low value reward, give the second a more complex task with a high value reward. Inevitably the first subject will try to copy the behavior of the more complex task. Primates get the work for reward concept unfortunately the third chimpanzee is rapidly forgetting it. The bail out of the financial industry was an OBLIGATION of the federal government, part of the community reinvestment act of 1993. Once again the unintended consequences of federal policy introduced a poison pill whose outcome was the melt down of 2008.

    Second, we fail to understand the job for which those in the financial industry are rewarded. I used to feel these people were overcompensated that is until a family member had to recruit these workers for a major corporation. Trust me you would never take the job that these people do. Few last longer than 5 years before they burn out. There are also long periods of unemployment between the high paying gigs. Most use their wall street positions as a way to “make their bones” so as to make them more attractive for more conventional employment. Before you condemn this as unjust compensation try walking in the shoes for awhile.

    Link to this
  5. 5. RobLewis 4:06 pm 12/7/2012

    This may all be true, and cute, and heartwarming, but it’s largely irrelevant to modern human society. Pinker and others have written about the different mental models humans use for economic transactions. Perhaps the simplest is equality matching, where everything is divided equally, that is, “fairly”. Apparently chimps get this.

    But in advanced economies, the relevant model is market pricing. And in this model, there is no simple way to determine what is “fair”. Look at the current “crisis” about the tax rates of the wealthy vs. the middle class.

    I argue here http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/25/1164564/-Taxing-the-rich-it-s-not-about-fairness?detail=hide that since fairness is basically impossible to define objectively, we shouldn’t even trouble ourselves trying. Instead, society should redistribute wealth to reduce the negative externalities caused by excessive concentration of wealth at the upper end.

    Link to this
  6. 6. EyesWideOpen 6:24 pm 12/7/2012

    Question to the author:

    Did the study include rewarding chimpanzees for performing tasks of various difficulty and intellectual levels?

    Example: Group A carries a heavy object to you and receives a carrot (less desirable). Group B solves a simple puzzle of the level of primate intellect, involving mental dexterity. Then the group rewards are juxtaposed. Any different reactions?

    Real world application: Pentagon funds a top secret field study in a city where garbage worker salaries are raised to $250,000 a year (paid out of black box budget for study). Researchers go undercover in that city to monitor the pulse of reactions to this compensation. Do executive salaries go up 10 fold to compensate for the outrage by the elite to the sudden increase in salaries of people perceived as “beneath them”? How about other salaries. How does the public treat these garbage workers in the morning during their routes?

    That’s a bad analogy, could be better, but on short order, to get a sense of whether the primates sensed they were treated unfairly for doing nothing, vs. true inequity (i.e. executives making $1 million a year or more to sit in offices and do nothing, or “work from home” or from the golf course, while engineers create their wealth for a pittance). People judge what their life’s investment (in education, years of experience, and so forth) stacks up against others in compensation. How can primates approximate that deeper level of complexity in relation to your thesis?

    Link to this
  7. 7. rshoff 9:34 pm 12/7/2012

    Enjoyed this article. Just one point… If we ‘we refuse to perpetuate it’, we ourselves would end up destitute on the street, jobless and homeless. So we are forced to perpetuate it in all but the least meaningful ways. Sure toss a coin to the beggar or donate to a soup kitchen. That’s not really sharing.

    Link to this
  8. 8. LuciusCornelius 6:54 am 12/8/2012

    Very surprised to see this article on Scientific American.

    It willfully misrepresents the central message of the Gospel of Wealth, probably banking on the probability that most readers won’t have read it, won’t bother to read it or won’t remember.

    This is intellectually dishonest, perhaps maliciously so.

    I encourage everyone to actually read the Gospel of Wealth (thankfully linked in this piece) and take the author to task.

    There is no room for ideology in science. Neither is there room for hate-or fear-mongering or attacking strawmen.

    “The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced”

    Link to this
  9. 9. American Muse 6:32 pm 12/10/2012

    Ayn Rand was dead wrong! And so was Adam Smith.

    Link to this
  10. 10. IslandGardener 5:31 am 12/11/2012

    Well done Eric Michael Johnson!

    Science is not a substitute for moral philosophy. Science is necessary to establish the facts of life, but it not enough by itself to make moral and political decisions – for that we also need to do what we believe to be right.

    Lucius Cornelius says ‘There is no room for ideology in science’.

    But we all have ideological beliefs, whether we’re conscious of them or not.

    And some ideologists have hijacked and misrepresented science, especially biology, in an attempt to justify inequality and unfairness.

    We do not need to know that other animals have a sense of justice to make our political decisions. We could say that we choose fairness despite it being against our instincts, just as we choose to label aggression as wrong.

    But if the supposed science used by the apologists for unfairness is a distortion of the facts, then one of the excuses for injustice is undermined.

    Scientists will be more honest – and therefore true to the spirit of science – if they make clear their own beliefs, and acknowledge how that may influence their work, but then act accordingly when it comes to moral and political decisions.

    Link to this
  11. 11. cccampbell38 7:46 pm 12/12/2012

    The Carnegie family emigrated to the US from Dunfermline Scotland. My wife’s family is also from Dunfermline. The family legend is that little Andrew got into a fight with my wife’s great grandfather and it escalated to a family problem. So, the good people of Dunfermline took up a collection and sent the Carnegies to America. The official record is that a relative lent them the money for passage but I like our version better.

    Could it possibly be that little Andrew was a pain in the rear long before he became a gigantic pain in the rear as a robber baron.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Special Universe

Get the latest Special Collector's edition

Secrets of the Universe: Past, Present, Future

Order Now >

X

Email this Article

X