Upload
leanne
View
54
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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