The dark side of fair play

Mar 07, 2014

We often think of playing fair as an altruistic behavior. We're sacrificing our own potential gain to give others what they deserve. What could be more selfless than that? But new research from Northeastern University assistant professor of philosophy Rory Smead suggests another, darker origin behind the kindly act of fairness.

Smead studies spite. It's a conundrum that evolutionary biologists and behavioral philosophers have been mulling over for decades, and it's still relatively unclear why the seemingly pointless behavior sticks around. Technically speaking, spite is characterized as paying a cost to harm another. It yields virtually no positive outcome for the perpetrator. So why would evolution—which is supposed to weed out such behaviors—let spite stick around?

Smead's research, conducted in collaboration with Patrick Forber of Tufts University and recently published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, sheds new light on this nefarious phenomenon.

A common means of studying social behaviors is through simplified models and games. One of these is called the , in which a one player proposes a division of resources the other player can either accept or reject. Suppose each interaction concerns the distribution of 10 one-dollar bills. The first player could suggest that he take $5 for himself and give the remaining $5 to the second player. That would be a fair play.

However, that first player could also go for an unfair option in which he keeps $9 for himself and gives just $1 to the second player. While the second player is worse off if he rejects the proposal (he's got ziltch in his pocket instead of $1), he almost always does so in real-world versions of the game: It's just not fair.

But when Smead and his colleagues decided to simulate this game mathematically to see how it would play out, they found that in fact the exact opposite happens. Fairness usually gets flushed out of the system since it's more beneficial for both the first player (the proposer) to suggest unfair offers and for the second player (the responder) to accept them.

"Evolutionary models don't match what we're observing in real life," Smead said. Clearly, he thought, there must be something else going on.

In the new study, Smead and Forber considered that the ultimatum game is actually quite unlike the real world. It's an extremely simplified simulation of one of infinite ways that two individuals could act. The researchers couldn't, for obvious reasons, make the game as complex and nuanced as real world social interactions, but they could instead just add a little more nuance to it and see what happened.

So that's what they did. In their new version of the game, the researchers introduced something called "negative assortment." Think of assortment as the likelihood that a person you're interacting with is similar to you. In negative assortment, that likelihood is low, so in the ultimatum game the players would likely use different strategies.

Here's where spite comes back into play. If you and I both commit to just making fair offers, but my strategy is to accept all offers—be they fair or unfair—and yours is to accept only fair ones, we are different. A spiteful strategy would be to both make only unfair offers, but reject such offers when they come from the other person.

In the original version of the ultimatum game, a spiteful player will usually walk away with nothing and forfeit the game. But with negative assortment, spite becomes common and actually ends up promoting fairness. "Acting fairly protects you from spite," Smead explained.

Think of it this way. A "gamesman" is someone who only makes unfair offers to benefit himself but accepts whatever comes his way because he believes it'll all wash out in the end. "Gamesmen become a target for spite because they're making unfair offers," Smead said. The "spiters" will reject those offers, eventually killing off the gamesmen.

But fair players will now do quite well in the presence of spite. Since they don't make unfair offers, they don't risk being rejected by the spiteful players. Fairness actually becomes a strategy for survival in this land of spite.

"Real social life is complicated," Smead said. While his new version of the ultimatum game is still a simplification, it illuminates another possible explanation for fair behavior that hadn't been considered before.

Explore further: Study suggest people act fairly due to spite, not altruism

More information: Proc. R. Soc. B April 7, 2014 281 1780 20132439; 1471-2954. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2013.2439

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Study suggest people act fairly due to spite, not altruism

Feb 12, 2014

(Phys.org) —A study done by philosophers Patrick Forber of Tufts University and Rory Smead of Northwestern University, suggests fairness in societies evolves out of a fear of spite from others, rather than due to an increase ...

The cost of racial bias in economic decisions

Oct 17, 2013

When financial gain depends on cooperation, we might expect that people would put aside their differences and focus on the bottom line. But new research suggests that people's racial biases make them more likely to leave ...

Recommended for you

BPG image format judged awesome versus JPEG

Dec 17, 2014

If these three letters could talk, BPG, they would say something like "Farewell, JPEG." Better Portable Graphics (BPG) is a new image format based on HEVC and supported by browsers with a small Javascript ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ormondotvos
3 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2014
Another of sociology's pitiful attempts to convince us it's a science, by simplifying human behavior.

A simple example: shoving a rival aside to obtain more food. Negative and spiteful, but more food for you.
Sigh
5 / 5 (2) Mar 08, 2014
Another of sociology's pitiful attempts to convince us it's a science

This is an example of behavioural game theory. I have seen papers on the subject in journals covering economics, behavioural ecology, mathematics and psychology, but never yet sociology.

by simplifying human behavior

It's what you have to do when you deal with a complex system that is not mathematically tractable. You simplify and check how much you lose, or else you walk away and give up any hope of ever applying science to the subject.

A simple example: shoving a rival aside to obtain more food. Negative and spiteful, but more food for you.

In behavioural ecology, and I think more generally in behavioural game theory, spite is defined as an act that costs both the actor and the recipient. Your example benefits the actor. It can meet the colloquial definition of spite, but not the one that is used in any of the scientific papers I have read.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2014
Where are those who can't even find America on a map of the world engaging in all these elaborate machinations? If these elaborate games and assumptions are so "evolutionarily" favorable, why did it allow the past few generations to turn into drooling video game addicts? In fact, does anyone really, in practice, engage in these many calculations when carrying out an act of spite? For the most part, spite is a "crime of passion" rather than a well thought out plot. Where necessarily is all the calculating and planning when someone nabs someone's car keys and hides them under the sofa cushion? Or if they don't tell them that a friend called? Or if they toss a letter away addressed to someone? And, frankly, "game theory" is a fraud. It has a lot of calculations, a lot of tables, a lot of diagrams, but, in the end, it always gives as the "conclusion" that the individual just ignores the information and chooses arbitrarily.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.