Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explaining Fairness

Results from an Experiment in Guinea

  • Published:
Human Nature Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fairness is undoubtedly an essential normative concept in humans and promotes cooperation in human societies. The fact that fairness exists is puzzling, however, because it works against the short-term interest of individuals. Theories of genetic evolution, cultural evolution, and gene-culture coevolution identify plausible mechanisms for the evolution of fairness in humans. Such mechanisms include kin selection, the support of group-beneficial moral norms through ethnic markers, free partner choice with equal outside options, and free partner choice with reputation as well as spite in small populations. Here, we present the results of a common-pool resource game experiment on sharing. Based on data from 37 multiethnic villages in a subsistence agricultural population in Foutah Djallon, Guinea, we show that fair behavior in our experiment increased with increasing ethnic homogeneity and market integration. Group size and kinship had the opposite effect. Overall, fair behavior was not conditional on reputation. Instead, the ability of the different village populations to support individuals’ fairness in situations lacking the opportunity to build a positive reputation varied significantly. Our results suggest that evolutionary theory provides a useful framework for the analysis of fairness in humans.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahn, T. K., Ostrom, E., & Walker, J. (2011). A common-pool resource experiment with postgraduate subjects from 41 countries. Ecological Economics, 70, 1580–1589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2000). Participation in heterogeneous communities. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 847–904.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., Baqir, R., & Easterly, W. (1999). Public goods and ethnic divisions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4), 1243–1284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C. J., & Paskeviciute, A. (2006). How ethnic and linguistic heterogeneity influence the prospects for civil society: A comparative study of citizenship behavior. Journal of Politics, 68, 783–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • André, J.-B., & Baumard, N. (2011a). Social opportunities and the evolution of fairness. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 289, 128–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • André, J.-B., & Baumard, N. (2011b). The evolution of fairness in a biological market. Evolution, 65(5), 1447–1456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, A. (2004). Kinship, familiarity and trust: An experimental investigation. In Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., & Gintis, H. (Eds.), Foundations of human sociality: Economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. Oxford Scholarship Online. https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199262055.001.0001/acprof-9780199262052-chapter-10.

  • Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereczkei, T., Birkas, B., & Kerekes, Z. (2007). Public charity offer as a proximate factor of evolved reputation-building strategy: An experimental analysis of a real-life situation. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 277–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereczkei, T., Birkas, B., & Kerekes, Z. (2010). Altruism towards stragers in need: Costly signaling in an industrial society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, J. J., Murphy-Berman, V., & Singh, P. (1985). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in perceptions of fairness. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 16(1), 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boesch, L., Mundry, R., Kühl, H. S., & Berger, R. (2017). Wild mammals as economic goods and implications for their conservation. Ecology and Society, 22(4), 36. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09516-220436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolker, B. M., Brooks, M. E., Clark, C. J., Geange, S. W., Poulsen, J. R., Stevens, M. H. H., & White, J.-S. S. (2009). Generalized linear mixed models: A practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24(3), 127–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan, S. F., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2014). Evolution of responses to (un)fairness. Science, 346(6207), 1251776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull, R., & Gibson-Robinson, E. (1981). The influences of eye-gaze, style of dress, and locality on the amounts of money donated to a charity. Human Relations, 34(10), 895–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantrelle, P., & Dupire, M. (1964). L’endogamie des Peul du Fouta-Djallon. Population, 3, 529–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cason, T. N., & Mui, V.-L. (1998). Social influence in the sequential dictator game. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 42, 248–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, Y.-S. (2008). Preferential association and the evolution of strategies in the ultimatum game. Rationality and Society, 20(2), 173–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chudek, M., & Henrich, J. (2011). Culture-gene coevolution, norm-psychology and the emergence of human prosociality. Trends in Cognitive Science, 15(5), 218–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, D. L., & Kahn, M. E. (2003). Cowards and heroes: Group loyalty in the American Civil War. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(2), 519–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronk, L. (2007). The influence of cultural framing on play in the trust game: A Maasai example. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 352–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Debove, S., André, J.-B., & Baumard, N. (2015). Partner choice creates fairness in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 282. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0392.

  • Debove, S., Baumard, N., & André, J.-B. (2016). Models of the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game: A review and classification. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 245–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diekman, A. (2004). The power of reciprocity: Fairness, reciprocity, and stakes in variants of the dictator game. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48(4), 487–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emsinger, J. (2004) Market integration and fairness: evidence from ultimatum, dictator, and public goods experiments in East Africa. In Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., & Gintis, H. (Eds.) Foundations of human sociality: Economic experiments and ethnographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. Oxford Scholarship Online. https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0199262055.001.0001/acprof-9780199262052-chapter-12.

  • Essock-Vitale, S. M., & McGuire, M. T. (1980). Predictions derived from the theories of kin selection and reciprocation assessed by anthropological data. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1, 233–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425(6960), 785–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M. E., Irlenbusch, B., & Sadrieh, A. (2004). An intergenerational common pool resource experiment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 48, 811–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forber, P., & Smead, S. (2014). The evolution of fairness through spite. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 281. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2439.

  • Forstmeier, W., & Schielzeth, H. (2011). Cryptic hypotheses testing in linear models: Overestimated effect sizes and the winner’s curse. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65, 47–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2011). An R companion to applied regression (second ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, Nicole. (2013). Elections and ethnicity in Guinea. Africa Is a Country. Accessed 15 May 2014. http://africasacountry.com/2013/09/elections-and-ethnicity-in-guinea/.

  • Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2012). Field experiments: Design, analysis and interpretation. New York: Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gintis, H., Bowlers, S., Boyd, R., & Fehr, E. (2003). Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groelsema, R. J. (1998). The dialectics of citizenship and ethnicity in Guinea. Africa Today, 45(3/4), 411–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurven, M. (2004). To give and to give not: The behavioral ecology of human food transfers. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 543–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurven, M., Hill, M., Kaplan, H., Hurtado, A., & Lyles, R. (2000). Food transfers among Hiwi foragers of Venezuela: Tests of reciprocity. Human Ecology, 28(2), 171–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurven, M., Allen-Arave, W., Hill, K., & Hurtado, A. M. (2001). Reservation food sharing among the Ache of Paraguay. Human Nature, 12(4), 273–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustavsson, M., & Jordahl, H. (2008). Inequality and trust in Sweden: Some inequalities are more harmful than others. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 348–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Güth, W., & Kocher, M. G. (2014). More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 108, 396–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habyarimana, J., Humphreys, M., Posner, D. N., & Weinstein, J. M. (2007). Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision? American Political Science Review, 101(4), 709–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J. (2000). Does culture matter in economic behavior? Ultimatum game bargaining among the Machiguenga of the Peruvian Amazon. The American Economic Review, 90(4), 973–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., & McElreath, R. (2001). In search of Homo economicus: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. The American Economic Review, 91(2), 73–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Ensminger, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., Cardena, J. C., Gurven, M., Gwako, E., Henrich, N., Lesorogol, C., Marlowe, F., Tracer, D., & Ziker, J. (2010). Markets, religion, community size and the evolution of fairness and punishment. Science, 327, 1480–1484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, A. O. (1982). Rival interpretations of market society: Civilizing, destructive, or feeble? Journal of Economic Literature, 20(4), 1463–1484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoel, M. (1987). Bargaining games with a random sequence of who makes the offers. Economic Letters, 24, 5–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huck, S., & Oechssler, J. (1999). The indirect evolutionary approach to explaining fair allocations. Games and Economic Behavior, 28, 13–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, D. (2000). Group nepotism and human kinship. Current Anthropology, 41(5), 779–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurzban, R. (2001). The social psychophysics of cooperation: Nonverbal communication in a public goods game. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 25(4), 241–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamba, S., & Mace, R. (2011). Demography and ecology drive variation in cooperation across human populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 108(35), 14426–14430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, A. (2006). Trust, inequality and ethnic heterogeneity. The Economic Record, 82, 268–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlan, S. J., & Quinlan, R. J. (2008). Kinship, family, and gender effects in the ultimatum game. Human Nature, 19, 294–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McElreath, R., Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2003). Shared norms and the evolution of ethnic markers. Current Anthropology, 44(1), 122–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miguel, E., & Gugerty, M. K. (2005). Ethnic diversity, social sanctions, and public goods in Kenya. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 2325–2368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milinski, M., Semmann, D., & Krambeck, H.-J. (2002). Donors to charity gain in both indirect reciprocity and political reputation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 269, 881–883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newton, K., & Delhey, J. (2005). Predicting cross-national levels of social trust: Global pattern or Nordic exceptionalism? European Sociological Review, 21, 311–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolin, D. A. (2011). Kin preference and partner choice: Patrilineal descent and biological kinship in Lamaleran cooperative relationships. Human Nature, 22, 156–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, M. A., Page, K. M., & Sigmund, K. (2000). Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game. Science, 289(5485), 1773–1775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oosterbeek, H., Sloof, R., & van de Kuilen, G. (2004). Cultural differences in ultimatum game experiments: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Experimental Economics, 7, 171–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paciotti, B., & Hadley, C. (2003). The ultimatum game in southwestern Tanzania: Ethnic variation and institutional scope. Current Anthropology, 44(3), 427–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, J. Q. (2005). Meat sharing for coalitional support. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 137–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennant, R. (2005) Diversity, trust and community participation in England. Home Office Findings 253, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. Available online at: http://www.blink.org.uk/docs/ho_findings_diversity_trust.pdf.

  • Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, G. P., & Keough, M. J. (2002). Experimental design and data analysis for biologists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • R Development Core Team (2016) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org

  • Rapoport, A. (1988). Experiments with n-person social traps, II: Tragedy of the commons. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 32(3), 473–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, A., & Erev, I. (1993). Learning in extensive-form games: Experimental data and simple dynamic models in the intermediate term. Games and Economic Behavior, 8, 164–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, A. E., Prasnikar, V., Okuno-Fujiwara, M., & Zamir, S. (1991). Bargaining and market behavior in Jerusalem, Ljubljana, Pittsburgh and Tokyo: An experimental study. American Economic Review, 81(5), 1068–1095.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubinstein, A. (1982). Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica, 50(1), 97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satow, K. L. (1975). Social approval and helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 501–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schielzeth, H. (2010). Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1, 103–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schielzeth, H., & Forstmeier, W. (2009). Conclusions beyond support: Overconfident estimates in mixed models. Behavioral Ecology, 20, 416–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms, B. (1994). Sex and justice. The Journal of Philosophy, 91(6), 305–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skyrms, B. (2000). Game theory, rationality and evolution of the social contract. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7(1-2), 269–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1986). The theory of moral sentiments. Charlottesville: Lincoln-Rembrandt (originally published in 1759).

    Google Scholar 

  • Soetevent, A. R. (2005). Anonymity in giving in a natural context: A field experiment in 30 churches. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 2301–2323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, D. O., & Haruvy, E. (2006). Other-regarding preferences: Egalitarian warm glow, empathy and group size. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 61, 20–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M., & Vaish, A. (2013). Origins of human cooperation and morality. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 231–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tracer, D. P. (2003). Selfishness and fairness in economic and evolutionary perspective: An experimental economic study in Papua New Guinea. Current Anthropology, 44(3), 432–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, B., Cesarini, D., Lichtenstein, P., & Johannesson, M. (2007). Heritability of ultimatum game responder behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 104(40), 15631–15634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, A. S., & Gardner, A. (2010). Altruism, spite and greenbeards. Science, 327(5971), 1341–1344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiessner, P. (2002). Hunting, healing, and hxaro exchange a long-term perspective on !Kung (Ju/‘hoansi) large-game hunting. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 407–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziker, J., & Schnegg, M. (2005). Food sharing at meals. Human Nature, 16(2), 178–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

First, we thank the Guinean authorities for providing us with their support and all necessary documents to work in the country. Second, we thank the local population for its kind cooperation. Third, we thank our Guinean assistants Salian Traore, Mohammed Kaba Abdoulaye Diallo, and Ousmane Diallo for their work and advices. Finally, we thank two anonymous reviewers, and Christophe Boesch for consultancy, reviewing, and useful advice. This work was funded and facilitated by the Wild Chimpanzee Foundation (WCF) and Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Soziologie, Universität Leipzig, Beethovenstr. 15, 04107, Leipzig, Germany

    Lukas Boesch & Roger Berger

Authors
  1. Lukas Boesch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roger Berger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lukas Boesch.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Our review board explicitly approved the covert field experiment presented in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 495 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boesch, L., Berger, R. Explaining Fairness. Hum Nat 30, 398–421 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-019-09353-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-019-09353-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation