Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday July 15 2017, @10:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the status-quo dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Human beings largely object to income inequality and are willing to correct injustice—unless, of course, it rattles their status quo.

That's the conclusion of a recent study looking at how far people would go to redistribute resources between the haves and have nots. Participants fiercely objected to "when winners become losers and losers become winners," researchers note in the paper, published in the latest issue of Nature Human Behaviour.

Researchers initially recruited Indian, American, and Chinese participants take part in an experimental game they called "the redistribution game." The gist of the game was simple: Participants were given a number of scenarios that would redistribute a fixed sum from a richer person to someone poorer. Participants were told the original standing of wealth was assigned randomly.

In the first scenario, participants had to decide if they wanted to transfer two coins from person A (who already had four coins) to person B (who had one). Researchers note the "transfer would reduce inequality," (as there's less of a gap between them), but person B would end up one coin richer than person A, reversing their status.

In the second version of game, participants were asked whether they'd transfer one coin to person B (where person A ended up with three coins and person B with two coins). Researchers ran a third and fourth scenario that allowed participants to transfer coins from person A to B, where the outcome still left person A with significantly more coins.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @11:36PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @11:36PM (#539691)

    They used an odd amount of resource, so there was never *TRUE* equality.

    What would people decide if there was the option for each person to get 2.5 coins instead of having to choose which person got 3 coins?

    It seems like the experiment was set up to coach the results it established.

    This is an example of what is wrong with scientific studies: Maybe intentionally choose to willfully ignore a/the scenario which would refute their hypothesis/preconceived result.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 16 2017, @12:01AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 16 2017, @12:01AM (#539702)

    What, none of the participants decided to throw away the odd-coin-out? But I always see rich people on tech forums talking about how they earn six figures as full stack coders and they always throw pennies directly into the trash because rich people have no use for change.