본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

불평등에 대한 능력주의 귀인과 집단 정체성이 공공재 게임 실험에서 협력 행동에 미치는 효과

The Effects of Meritocratic Attribution of Inequality and Group identity on Cooperative Behavior in Public Goods Experiment

김재우|천거양
사회과학연구소 (Institute of Social Sciences SOGANG UNIVERSITY)|2022.11|지역과 세계 (Locality and Globality: International Journal of Social Sciences)|제46권 제4호|pp. 27-59|DOI 10.33071/ssricb.46.4.202211.27

2

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

집단 정체성Inequity Aversion공공재 게임Public Goods GameGroup IdentityDistributional Inequality능력주의 믿음분배 불평등불형평 회피Meritocratic Beliefs
주제분류기타사회과학

초록

본 실험 연구의 목적은 공공재 기여가 분배 불평등 원인에 대한 인식과 집단 정체성에 따라 어떻게 변화하는지를 탐구하는 것이다. 이를 위해 실험 참가자들에게 서로 다른 양의 초기 자금을 할당하되 두 가지 요인을 설정하여 2x2 피험자간 설계를 구상하였다. 첫째, 절반의 참여자들에게는 주사위 숫자 대신 퀴즈 점수를 반영한 차등 분배를 적용함으로써 귀속된 자산을 운이 아니라 노력의 대가로 받아들이도록 유도하였다. 둘째, 내집단 의식은 직소 퍼즐을 이용한 협력 게임을 통해 조작하였다. 중국 유학생 16명을 각 조건에 무선할당하고 z-Tree 프로그램을 활용하여 4인 공공재 게임을 10회 수행하였다. 본 연구의 주요 발견은 다음과 같다. 첫째, 선행 연구들에서처럼 시간이 지날수록 공공재 기여율이 전반적으로 감소하는 전형적인 양상이 나타났으며, 대부분의 참여자들은 조건부 협력자로 분류될 수 있었다. 둘째, 능력주의 믿음은 불평등한 분배 결과를 정당화하여 지속적인 공공재 공급을 어렵게 만들며, 내집단으로 인식된 참가자들과 게임을 할 때 기여율이 높아진다. 셋째, 능력주의 대 비능력주의 믿음의 프레이밍 효과는 집단 정체성에 의해 조절되는데, 이들 기여율의 차이는 내집단 의식이 존재할 때 더 커진다. 자신을 집단 구성원으로 지각하더라도 능력주의로의 귀인은 최상위 및 최하위 집단으로 하여금 공공 계좌에 기부하는 것을 꺼리게 만든다. 이와는 대조적으로 동일한 조건에서 비능력주의 태도는 최상층의 유리한 불평등 회피 경향을 증가시키지만 하층의 불리한 불평등 회피 경향은 줄임으로써 결과적으로 지속적인 공공재 기여의 가능성을 더 높여준다. 이처럼 본 연구는 사회로부터의 보상이 자신의 실력에 비례해야 한다는 능력주의적 형평 원리가 공정한 불평등을 관용함으로써 연대 의식과 협력 행동을 무너뜨릴 수 있으며, 평등주의적 원리만으로는 다양한 집단으로 다원화된 사회에서 공공재 공급을 둘러싼 갈등을 해결하는데 어려울 수 있음을 시사해준다.

Abstract

This experimental study intends to examine how the contribution of public goods varies according to perceived reasons for distributional inequality and group identity. A 2x2 factorial between-subjects design was considered with an unequal assignment of initial endowments among game participants. One factor depends on whether the ascribed asset at each round is attributable to efforts or luck. The other factor is related to whether ingroup identity is manipulated or partners are matched at random. A total of 16 Chinese students at a public university were randomly assigned and then played ten rounds of a one-shot voluntary public goods game through the z-Tree platform. First, we found that the rates of contribution tend to decline over time and that most players were conditional cooperators. Second, the average contribution is considerably lower under the test condition, while it is higher when playing with perceived in-group members. Third, the framing effect regarding the sources of unfairness is moderated by group identification, indicating that the gap in the contribution rate becomes wider between the test and windfall condition in the presence of in-group identity. Even when perceived themselves as a group, a shared meritocratic belief tends to render not only the highest-endowment group but also the lowest-endowment group less involved in public goods contribution. Under the same condition, in contrast, a non-meritocratic frame seems to fuel the advantageous inequity aversion and weaken the disadvantageous inequity aversion, resulting in the overall higher contribution rates by both groups. Taken together, the current study offers a considerable implication that an equity principle based on meritocratic values could trump solidarity and cooperation in pursuit of fair inequality and also that it might be hard to resolve conflicts in public goods provision with a non-meritocratic principle alone in increasingly heterogeneous societies with ethnically and culturally diverse groups.

참고문헌 (84)

  1. Ackermann, Kurt A., "Explaining cooperative behavior in public goods games : How preferences and beliefs affect contribution levels", Games, 10(1), pp.15~ (2019)
  2. An, Weihua, "the gap: Disparity in redistributive preference between political elites and the public in China", European Journal of Political Economy, 50, pp.75~91 (2017)
  3. Alesina, Alberto, "Public goods and ethnic divisions", The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4), pp.1243~1284 (1999)
  4. Almås, Ingvild, "Fairness and the development of inequality acceptance", Science, 328(5982), pp.1176~1178 (2010)
  5. Anderson, Lisa R., "Inequality and public good provision : An experimental analysis", The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(3), pp.1010~1028 (2008)
  6. Ashley, Richard, "Motives for giving : A reanalysis of two classic public goods experiments", Southern Economic Journal, 77(1), pp.15~26 (2010)
  7. How peer-punishment affects cooperativeness in homogeneous and heterogeneous groups: A public goods experiment with social identity, "Bicskei, Marianna", Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, ~, pp.Cege Discussion Papers 200 (2014)
  8. Brewer, Marilynn B., "Choice behavior in social dilemmas : Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), pp.543~549 (1986)
  9. Buckley, Edward, "Income and wealth heterogeneity in the voluntary provision of linear public goods", Journal of Public Economics, 90(4-5), pp.935~955 (2006)
  10. Callan, Mitchell J., "The interrelations between social class, personal relative deprivation, and prosociality", Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(6), pp.660~669 (2017)
  11. Cardenas, Juan-Camilo, "Real wealth and experimental cooperation : experiments in the field lab", Journal of development Economics, 70(2), pp.263~289 (2003)
  12. Chan, Kenneth S., "Heterogeneity and the voluntary provision of public goods", Experimental Economics, 2(1), pp.5~30 (1999)
  13. Chaudhuri, Ananish, "Sustaining cooperation in laboratory public goods experiments : A selective survey of the literature", Experimental Economics, 14(1), pp.47~83 (2011)
  14. Charness, Gary, "Understanding social preferences with simple tests", The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), pp.817~869 (2002)
  15. Chen, Yan, "Group identity and social preferences", American Economic Review, 99(1), pp.431~457 (2009)
  16. Cherry, Todd L., "Hardnose the dictator", American Economic Review, 92(4), pp.1218~1221 (2002)
  17. Cherry, Todd L., "The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on public good contributions : Evidence from the lab", Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 57(3), pp.357~365 (2005)
  18. Côté, Stéphane, "High economic inequality leads higher-income individuals to be less generous", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(52), pp.15838~15843 (2015)
  19. Cox, Caleb A., "Strategic thinking in public goods games with teams", Journal of Public Economics, 161, pp.31~43 (2018)
  20. Currarini, Sergio, "Identity, homophily and in-group bias", European Economic Review, 90, pp.40~55 (2016)
  21. Curtis, Josh, "How social class shapes attitudes on economic inequality : The competing forces of self-interest and legitimation", International Review of Social Research, 5(1), pp.4~19 (2015)
  22. Dalen, Kristin, "Changing attitudes towards government responsibility for social welfare in China between 2004 and 2014: Evidence from three national surveys", International Journal of Social Welfare, 31(2), pp.248~262 (2022)
  23. Dawes, Robyn M, "Social dilemmas", Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), pp.169~193 (1980)
  24. Eckel, Catherine C., "Managing diversity by creating team identity", Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 58(3), pp.371~392 (2005)
  25. Eek, Daniel, "Cooperation in asymmetric social dilemmas when equality is perceived as unfair", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(3), pp.649~666 (2001)
  26. Ellingsen, T., "Social framing effects: Preferences or beliefs?", Games and Economic Behavior, 76(1), pp.117~130 (2012)
  27. Engelmann, Dirk, "Inequality aversion, efficiency, and maximin preferences in simple distribution experiments", American Economic Review, 94(4), pp.857~869 (2004)
  28. Everett, Jim AC, "Preferences and beliefs in ingroup favoritism", Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, pp.15~ (2015)
  29. Fehr, Ernst, "A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation", The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), pp.817~868 (1999)
  30. Filippin, Antonio, "The patron game with heterogeneous endowments : A case against inequality aversion", De Economist, 164(1), pp.69~81 (2016)
  31. Fischbacher, Urs, "z-Tree : Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments", Experimental Economics, 10(2), pp.171~178 (2007)
  32. Fischbacher, Urs, "Social Preferences, Beliefs, and the Dynamics of Free Riding in Public Goods Experiments", American Economic Review, 100(1), pp.541~556 (2010)
  33. Fischbacher, Urs, "Are people conditionally cooperative? Evidence from a public goods experiment", Economics Letters, 71(3), pp.397~404 (2001)
  34. Fischbacher, Urs, "The behavioral validity of the strategy method in public good experiments", Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(4), pp.897~913 (2012)
  35. Gächter, Simon, "Growth and inequality in public good provision", Journal of Public Economics, 150, pp.1~13 (2017)
  36. Gee, Laura K., "Redistributive choices and increasing income inequality : experimental evidence for income as a signal of deservingness", Experimental Economics, 20(4), pp.894~923 (2017)
  37. Habyarimana, James, "Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision?", American Political Science Review, 101(4), pp.709~725 (2007)
  38. Han, Chunping, "Attitudes toward government responsibility for social services : comparing urban and rural China", International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(4), pp.472~494 (2012)
  39. Heap, Shaun, "Endowment inequality in public goods games: A re-examination", Economics Letters, 146, pp.4~7 (2016)
  40. Henrich, Joseph, ""Economic man"in cross-cultural perspective : Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies", Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(6), pp.795~815 (2005)
  41. Hoffman, Elizabeth, "Preferences, property rights, and anonymity in bargaining games", Games and Economic Behavior, 7(3), pp.346~380 (1994)
  42. Isaac, R. Mark, "Divergent evidence on free riding : An experimental examination of possible explanations", Public Choice, 43(2), pp.113~149 (1984)
  43. Jost, John T., "The role of stereotyping in system justification and the production of false consciousness", British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, pp.1~27 (1994)
  44. Jost, John T., "A decade of system justification theory : Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo", Political Psychology, 25(6), pp.881~919 (2004)
  45. Kollock, Peter, "Social dilemmas : The anatomy of cooperation", Annual Review of Sociology, 24, pp.183~214 (1998)
  46. Koopmans, Ruud, "Collective action in culturally similar and dissimilar groups : An experiment on parochialism, conditional cooperation, and their linkages", Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(3), pp.201~211 (2009)
  47. Kreps, David M., "Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners' dilemma", Journal of Economic Theory, 27(2), pp.245~252 (1982)
  48. Kroll, Stephan, "The impact of endowment heterogeneity and origin on contributions in best-shot public good games", Experimental Economics, 10(4), pp.411~428 (2007)
  49. Kurzban, Robert, "Incremental commitment and reciprocity in a real-time public goods game", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(12), pp.1662~1673 (2001)
  50. Cooperation preferences in the provision of public goods: An experimental study on the effects of social identity, "Lankau, Matthias", Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, ~, pp.Cege Discussion Papers 148 (2012)
  51. Ledyard, John, "Handbook of Experimental Economics", pp.111~194 (1995), Princeton University Press
  52. Lerner, Melvin, J, "The Belief in a Just World : A Fundamental Delusion" (1980), Plenum Press
  53. Liberman, Varda, "The name of the game : Predictive power of reputations versus situational labels in determining prisoner’s dilemma game moves", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(9), pp.1175~1185 (2004)
  54. Ma, Baobin, "Public opinion and social justice in China", Journal of Chinese Political Science, 45(2), pp.1~18 (2021)
  55. Major, Brenda, "Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 26", pp.293~355 (1994), Academic Press
  56. Muehlbacher, Stephan, "Origin of endowments in public good games : The impact of effort on contributions", Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 2(1), pp.59~67 (2009)
  57. Nishi, Akihiro, "Inequality and visibility of wealth in experimental social networks", Nature, 526, pp.426~429 (2015)
  58. Orbell, John M., "Explaining discussion-induced cooperation", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), pp.811~819 (1988)
  59. Parks, Craig D., "Actions of similar others as inducements to cooperate in social dilemmas", Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(3), pp.345~354 (2001)
  60. Piff, Paul K., "Having less, giving more : the influence of social class on prosocial behavior", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), pp.771~784 (2010)
  61. Piff, Paul K., "Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(11), pp.4086~4091 (2012)
  62. Polzer, Jeffrey T., "A social categorization explanation for framing effects in nested social dilemmas", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79(2), pp.154~178 (1999)
  63. Rosenbaum, Stephen Mark, "Income inequality and cooperative propensities in developing economies : Summarizing the preliminary experimental evidence", International Journal of Social Economics, 43(12), pp.1460~1480 (2016)
  64. Schaub, Max, "Does poverty undermine cooperation in multiethnic settings? Evidence from a cooperative investment experiment", Journal of Experimental Political Science, 7(1), pp.27~40 (2020)
  65. Schroeder, David A., "Justice within social dilemmas", Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), pp.374~387 (2003)
  66. Sennett, Richard, "The Hideen Injuries of Class" (1972), Vintage
  67. Shepelak, Norma J, "The role of self-explanations and self-evaluations in legitimating inequality", American Sociological Review, 52(4), pp.495~503 (1987)
  68. Simpson, Brent, "Social identity and cooperation in social dilemmas", Rationality and Society, 18(4), pp.443~470 (2006)
  69. Smith, Eliot R., "Effects of inequality and reasons for inequality on group identification and cooperation in social dilemmas", Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6(2), pp.201~220 (2003)
  70. Tajfel, Henri, "Social categorization and intergroup behaviour", European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), pp.149~178 (1971)
  71. Tajfel, Henri, "Psychology of Intergroup Relations", pp.7~24 (1979), Nelson Hall
  72. Turner, John C., "Rediscovering the Social Group : A Self-categorization Theory" (1987), Blackwell
  73. Van Dijk, Eric, "Asymmetry of wealth and public good provision", Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(4), pp.352~359 (1994)
  74. Van Dijk, Eric, "Is it mine or is it ours? Framing property rights and decision making in social dilemmas", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(2), pp.195~209 (1997)
  75. Vohs, Kathleen D., "The psychological consequences of money", Science, 314(5802), pp.1154~1156 (2006)
  76. Von Hermanni, Hagen, "Does economic inequality moderate the effect of class on prosocial behavior? A large-scale test of a recent hypothesis by Côté et al", PloS one, 14(8), pp.e0220723~ (2019)
  77. Weng, Qian, "Cooperation in teams : The role of identity, punishment, and endowment distribution", Journal of Public Economics, 126, pp.25~38 (2015)
  78. Wit, Arjaan, "Social Dilemmas: Theoretical Issues and Research Findings", pp.183~197 (1992), Pergamon Press
  79. Xie, Yu, "Societal projection : Beliefs concerning the relationship between development and inequality in China", Social Science Research, 41(5), pp.1069~1084 (2012)
  80. Xie, Yu, "Income inequality in today’s China", Proceedings of the national academy of Sciences, 111(19), pp.6928~6933 (2014)
  81. Yamagishi, Toshio, "Bounded generalized reciprocity : Ingroup boasting and ingroup favoritism", Advances in Group Processes, 16(1), pp.161~197 (1999)
  82. "Inequality and fairness: A networked experiment" (2020)[URL]
  83. Zhang, Hong, "Individual-based relative deprivation(IRD)decreases prosocial behaviors", Motivation and Emotion, 40(5), pp.655~666 (2016)
  84. Zhang, Zhengxin, "Impact of Perceived Income Inequality on Private Provision of Public Goods", The 2nd International Conference on Economic Management and Cultural Industry (ICEMCI 2020), pp.84~91 (2020), Atlantis Press

관련 논문AI추천

능력주의 신념이 자선 행동에 미치는 영향홍수정한국소비자학회 · 소비자학연구2023 · 제34권 제6호안정성, 합법성 및 사회정체성이 집단상대박탈과 분배행동에 미치는 영향박군석, 한덕웅한국사회및성격심리학회 · 한국심리학회지: 사회및성격2004 · 제18권 제1호공공재 게임 실험에서 기여율의 하락: 학습 가설, 전략 가설, 상호적 맞대응 가설의 재평가최정규, 허준석한국계량경제학회 · 계량경제학보2012 · 제23권 제2호형평성 민감도가 협력의도에 미치는 영향: 협력/경쟁의 조절효과 및 심리적 과정의 탐색 연구박승립, 서용원한국산업및조직심리학회 · 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직2018 · 제31권 제1호가질 것인가? 줄 것인가?: 사회적 배제와 독재자 게임 자원 분배이국희사회과학연구소 · 지역과 세계2019 · 제43권 제3호사회계층 상향이동이 소득 불평등 인식에 미치는 영향: 사회계층에 대한 본질주의 신념의 매개 역할 탐구김영주한국사회및성격심리학회 · 한국심리학회지: 사회및성격2025 · 제39권 제2호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (2건)

내현적 자기애와 심리적 안녕감에 관한 연구: 부정 자기복잡성과 탈중심화의 매개효과를 중심으로정남운, 이지현pp. 5-26웨스트민스터 학파의 미디어 개혁론: 공영방송 개혁을 중심으로정용준pp. 61-83
원문 보기