Gated summaries of gated papers are annoying, but the result is interesting, so I thought I’d pass this along:
Put four Boston students-all strangers-in a game where they must distribute tokens among themselves using rules that reward both selfish and cooperative moves; allow them to punish each other by taking back tokens (albeit at a cost to themselves); and then watch the chips fall. The students not only penalize freeloaders- that is, players who don’t give enough tokens to the group- but also respond to each other’s punishment by giving more to the group in subsequent rounds. So do students in western European countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and Denmark.
But half a world away, in the more collectivist cultures of Istanbul, Turkey; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; and Muscat, Oman, the play is a little rougher. Students give less overall to the public weal. And when punished, the freeloaders strike back, exacting revenge from the do-gooders who penalized them in earlier rounds. Closer to home, students in Greece, Russia, and Belarus likewise act less altruistically and more readily ding their cooperative colleagues.
Having watched college students play the token game in 16 cities, the researchers conclude that “culture strongly influences cooperation and punishment,” says Simon Gächter, an economist at the University of Nottingham in England and one of the study’s authors.
[...]
Ironically, a distaste for civic cooperation and the rule of law tends to travel with collectivism, data from the World Values Survey show. Collectivistic societies stress interdependence between people and the pursuit of group goals. But not just any people or group’s goals count, explains Gächter: “In these societies you cooperate with people inside your network, which is organized along family and friendship lines. In our experiments, everyone is an outsider to everyone else. You might not accept punishment from outside your network.”
Conversely, individualistic societies view each person as independent and value the pursuit of individual goals. These mores are more prevalent in wealthier democracies, notes Herbert Gintis, an economist at the Santa Fe Institute, in an accompanying article. “In modern, market-based societies, group boundaries aren’t very important,” explains Gächter. “You have to be able to cooperate with unrelated strangers.” And so rather than being hotbeds of cut-throat competition, capitalist democracies are actually kinder and gentler than more traditional economies—at least for strangers.
Similar results have been rolling in for a while now. So it should be considered scientifically and thus intellectually bogus to characterize individualist cultures and markets societies as encouraging some kind of atomized dog-eat-dog ethic. There is tribalist solidarity, which certainly has its share of mammalian gratification, but leads to vicious conflict between tribes. And then there is liberal, market solidarity, which is based not in exclusion, or a feeling of warmth for our kinsmen, but in a perhaps less “meaningful” yet much more materially significant relations of extended mutual advantage.
[Thanks to Ashley March for the article.]
“in the more collectivist cultures of Istanbul, Turkey; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; and Muscat, Oman, the play is a little rougher.”
I take it all plausible third variables are accounted for in the paper? (Of the distinctions that could be drawn between Europe and the near Middle-East, “collectivism” doesn’t strike me as necessarily the most salient.)
“in the more collectivist cultures of Istanbul, Turkey; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; and Muscat, Oman, the play is a little rougher.”
I take it all plausible third variables are accounted for in the paper? (Of the distinctions that could be drawn between Europe and the near Middle-East, “collectivism” doesn’t strike me as necessarily the most salient.)
I’ve seen studies with similar results for Japan, if that helps “Q”.
In Japan as well, people have a strong sense of in-group vs. out-group. It’s not along tribal lines, exactly, but people who are extremely polite when the lines of demarcation are clearly drawn are often extremely less so when there are no clear group distinctions.
Note that in Japan as well as in the Middle East, it’s certainly not the case that out-group members are treated impolitely in general. Quite the reverse; there are certain areas, such as hospitality, where one is supposed to be more polite to an out-group member. However, there are various boundaries, rules, and defined roles.
Societies that rely a lot on fairly formal standards of politeness and in-group versus out-group thinking seem to have more difficulty maintaining altruism in unfamiliar situations where the roles are not clear. That said, they may be more altruistic in general, both with insiders and outsiders, as the vast majority of interactions may take place along well-defined pathways.
I’ve seen studies with similar results for Japan, if that helps “Q”.
In Japan as well, people have a strong sense of in-group vs. out-group. It’s not along tribal lines, exactly, but people who are extremely polite when the lines of demarcation are clearly drawn are often extremely less so when there are no clear group distinctions.
Note that in Japan as well as in the Middle East, it’s certainly not the case that out-group members are treated impolitely in general. Quite the reverse; there are certain areas, such as hospitality, where one is supposed to be more polite to an out-group member. However, there are various boundaries, rules, and defined roles.
Societies that rely a lot on fairly formal standards of politeness and in-group versus out-group thinking seem to have more difficulty maintaining altruism in unfamiliar situations where the roles are not clear. That said, they may be more altruistic in general, both with insiders and outsiders, as the vast majority of interactions may take place along well-defined pathways.
yet much more materially significant relations of extended mutual advantage.
It is of course ridiculous to pretend that tribalist, communitarian, and group-oriented societies are not based on materially significant relations of extended mutual advantage. For most people in these societies, the tribal or simple in-group (or in-corporation in Japanese society) relationships are ones of extended mutual advantage.
I don’t think you meant that strictly, however. They are, we agree, missing out by not forming mutually beneficial relationships with more outsiders. The post begs the question of exactly how to quantify what they are missing out on.
After all, how realistic is the situation typified by such games and experiments? The vast majority of the time, people in more collectivist societies would be “playing the game” with people with whom they have a developed role and relationship– something that even extends to be participants in a chatroom.
The point to me is not the ability to form mutually beneficial relationships, but the universality of being willing to consider new mutually beneficial relationships with strangers and with people in unfamiliar roles and ways; the dynamism, if you will. I think that people sacrifice a lot by not extending to a universal consideration of the human race, but I base that on moral grounds as well, and admit to a “feeling of warmth” for all my fellow humans.
yet much more materially significant relations of extended mutual advantage.
It is of course ridiculous to pretend that tribalist, communitarian, and group-oriented societies are not based on materially significant relations of extended mutual advantage. For most people in these societies, the tribal or simple in-group (or in-corporation in Japanese society) relationships are ones of extended mutual advantage.
I don’t think you meant that strictly, however. They are, we agree, missing out by not forming mutually beneficial relationships with more outsiders. The post begs the question of exactly how to quantify what they are missing out on.
After all, how realistic is the situation typified by such games and experiments? The vast majority of the time, people in more collectivist societies would be “playing the game” with people with whom they have a developed role and relationship– something that even extends to be participants in a chatroom.
The point to me is not the ability to form mutually beneficial relationships, but the universality of being willing to consider new mutually beneficial relationships with strangers and with people in unfamiliar roles and ways; the dynamism, if you will. I think that people sacrifice a lot by not extending to a universal consideration of the human race, but I base that on moral grounds as well, and admit to a “feeling of warmth” for all my fellow humans.
How does economic theory account for any of this?
How does economic theory account for any of this?