• No results found

6. Discussion

6.6. Main Findings and Conclusions

In this framework, when the difference between the deserved percentage following meritocratic norms and the percentage kept to self in each round is negative, then there is self-serving bias. Disregarding the observations in which the share kept to self is 10% under or 10%

above the null level of self-serving bias, 23.03% of all observations show self-serving bias.

Most of them (72.86%) come from ‘advantaged’ dictators. Besides, the difference between the average self-serving bias by ‘advantaged’ and ‘disadvantaged’ subjects is highly significant at the 1% level (p = 0.00014, Wilcoxon rank sum test), with ‘advantaged’ dictators showing, on average, 29.30% of self-serving behavior and ‘disadvantaged’ 22.87%. It is not surprising that

‘advantaged’ subjects showed a substantial higher degree of self-serving bias. That might be because the measure of self-serving bias used in this framework does not include the possible bias that ‘disadvantaged’ show when they keep less to themselves than they deserve according to meritocratic norms, suggesting that they feel less entitled to keeping more as their disadvantage increases. It would be interesting to analyze this “reversed” self-serving bias further, since there seems to be evidence suggesting a ‘disadvantaged’’ tendency to keep less throughout multipliers.

One other finding of this study was that ‘disadvantaged’ subjects not only kept significantly less than ‘advantaged’ subjects, but also that they kept considerably less to themselves than what observed in other recent studies. Amasino et al. (2021) found that it was the share kept by ‘disadvantaged’ was generally hovered around 50% of the generated surplus.

In this thesis, ‘disadvantaged’ dictators kept, on average, 40.56% of the surplus. Perhaps that difference is explained by the more hypothetical setting used in this thesis and the fact an approach similar to a strategy method was implemented. Possibly, the increasing inequality made ‘disadvantaged’ dictators feel less entitled to keeping half of the surplus, when compared to the setting in Amasino et al. (2021).

The first main finding of this study is in line with the attentional results in Amasino et al. (2021), as it suggests that randomly getting assigned an ‘advantaged’ position influences how people engaged with merit, luck, and outcome information. According to what hypothesized, ‘advantaged’ dictators looked relatively more at outcome information than at

merit and luck information than ‘disadvantaged’ dictators, even if statistical significance did not hold for all treatments. It might be interesting that this result is only significant for the difference between outcome and merit information in multiplier 3 and the exception for this trend occurs in multiplier 7, because that is probably related to ‘advantaged’ looking relatively more at merit and luck information with increasing inequality.

It was also found that inequality might possibly shift dictators’ attention. There was an aggregated trend of spending more time looking at merit and luck information rather than outcome information as inequality widened. Status can be included in this equation, as it once more determined differences in attention throughout multipliers. Crucially, ‘advantaged’

subjects spent more time looking at merit relative to outcome information in multiplier 7, possibly showing that they were more willing to follow meritocratic norms as their advantage widened. A novel feature in this study was the visual inclusion of pure luck information. There were no significant differences in ‘advantaged’’ attention to luck information as the inequality gap increased, as it probably shows their reluctance to confront their random advantage and to find basis for a more just subsequent division decision. On the other hand, ‘disadvantaged’

subjects looked relatively more at luck information in prejudice of outcome information throughout multipliers, although they did not show to look more at merit versus outcome information throughout multiplier. That is possibly because they did not adjust as much as inequality widened, given they were already more meritocratic at its lowest level to begin with, even if they seem to disadvantage themselves more than a meritocratic division would suggest.

It is possible that, as inequality widened, their willingness to compensate themselves for their relative bad luck motivated their attention towards luck information.

The last and the most statistically significant finding concerns the effect of attention on the dictators’ division decisions. As hypothesized, generally looking relatively more at merit and luck information led ‘advantaged’ participants to give more to the receiver and

‘disadvantaged’ participants to give less to the receiver, as there was a shift towards meritocratic norms for both. These findings suggest that attention might be a possible channel through which people’s willingness to redistribute can be impacted, in a world showing growing levels of income inequality. They also corroborate the idea that, when the perception of income inequality reaches high degrees, people are more likely to start crediting external factors for the reason behind disparities and endorsing redistribution (Kuhn, 2019).

The results of this study corroborate and extend the main attentional and behavioral findings by Amasino et al (2021). Namely, similar differences in attention and allocations by status were found. It was also investigated the extent to which inequality in payment rates might

rationalize self-serving allocations. It introduced a novel visual feature, which was pure luck information on payment rates. Although meritocratic norms showed to generally rule distribution, especially as inequality rose, information on the payment rates and its visualization also played a role in diminishing the self-serving bias. Above all, the motivation behind this design was to provide transparent and complete information about a randomly determined factor to decision-makers.

Contrarily to Deffains et al. (2016), there was no ambiguity as to the causes of success or failure in the present study. Individuals were well and completely informed about how exactly each factor, merit and luck, determined their monetary contribution. Although the division according to each fairness view was not extremely clear and easy to calculate at first glance, these well-controlled studies that carefully disentangle luck and merit are hard to perfectly translate outside of the laboratory. People do not always know which factor is at play, because these decisions are more complex and ambiguous in reality.

Furthermore, the findings in this study relate to those by Cappelen et al. (2007), Cappelen et al. (2010), and Franco-Watkins et al. (2013), in the sense that people’s division decisions cannot be reduced to inequality averse preferences when there is previous production.

Those studies generally confirmed the idea that people usually only redressed inequalities which were caused by merit differences, because they held each other responsible for factors that lay within their control. In this thesis, there were also differences in the share given to the receiver due to differences in production, as people tended to follow meritocratic norms.

Nevertheless, there were additional differences in divisions due to differences in luck, as allocations were biased by the level of inequality in payment rates. That was observed for both privileged subjects, as they probably kept more to themselves by taking advantage of their relative luck, and non-privileged subjects, who kept less as their relative disadvantage widened.

Perhaps this last finding corroborates the ones by Piff et al. (2010), which suggest that disadvantaged people are more likely to share with others and feel compassion, due to their higher desire to follow egalitarian rules. It can be argued, however, that the average share kept by disadvantaged in this thesis did not correspond to following egalitarian rules, as it was generally substantially below half of the surplus, as opposed to what found in Amasino et al.

(2021).

Summarily, this study contributes to previous literature on the perception of merit versus luck as sources of inequality and its consequences for redistribution preferences. It shows that people’s divisions are sometimes biased by luck determinants, and also by the extent to which those determinants benefit them. Crucially, it provides a possible solution for the

mitigation of such biases: attention to the determinants of production. It was shown that through providing complete and transparent information on income inequality, it is possible to mitigate the bias and, possibly, the conflict between the societal winners and losers. By reducing political polarization, agreements on redistribution systems can be achieved. Importantly, the findings in this study suggest that, until it is not too late, and inequality does not reach levels that cannot be justified, self-serving behavior does not stand forever. People just need the right information.

Naturally, the aim of this study was not to incentivize the rise of inequality so that self-serving behavior can be lowered. The aim of this study was to study if human nature leads people to behave more altruistically when, in this case, inequality is high. If shown the correct information, people are more willing to redistribute. And to do so, it is of high importance to acknowledge the role that luck can play in our and on others’ lives and success. That might be a good first step to help us realize that we probably want to help each other more than we initially thought, in a world full of inequalities.