National and gender differences in exclusionary behavior

(Press-News.org) When given the power to distribute resources, a person’s nationality, gender, and ideology can help predict how likely that person is to exclude others to maximize their own profit, according to a study. The results suggest that the identities and cultural backgrounds of decision-makers affect how equitably resources are divided.

Andrzej Baranski and Nicholas Haas placed study participants into groups of three to play a negotiation game. All interactions were via computer and no information about the other participants, such as names, ages, or genders was shared. A randomly chosen player was asked to propose a division for a fixed amount of money. As long as one other player approved of the division, the payout would proceed along the proposed lines. Players could propose a three-way split, or something like a 60%/40%/0% split, which might be acceptable to the player receiving 40% and net the proposer almost twice as much. The experiment was repeated in Australia, Austria, China, Colombia, Denmark, Egypt, Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Kenya, Spain, United Kingdom, United States, and Uruguay. In total, there were 1,485 participants, all university students. The most egalitarian nation was Austria, where just under 20% of negotiations ended in exclusionary alliances. In China, 70% of negotiations resulted in exclusionary alliances. In the United States, around 54% of negotiations resulted in exclusionary alliances. The best predictor for a high rate of exclusionary alliances was a high national score on the Hierarchy Tolerance Index, which attempts to quantify cultural acceptance of power inequalities. Men and ideologically right-wing participants were more likely to propose unequal splits than women and ideologically left-wing participants. All-male groups were 45% more likely to form an exclusionary alliance compared to all-female groups. According to the authors, ensuring gender equity in decision-making bodies may increase equality and inclusion in the distribution of resources.

END