If Only the Ayatollah Learned Fairness in Kindergarten

Watching the Iranian election, Karsh reminded me about a study I had read about in Wisdom of the Crowds that emphasized the importance of the perception of fairness in human society.

The study went something like this: you and I would sit across from each other, and the researcher would give me $10. I could then divide up the $10 between you and me however I wanted. I could take all $10 for myself and give you $0 in fact. The catch, though, was that if you rejected the amount I gave you, we both got nothing. Most people split the $10 down the middle, $5:$5, or slightly skewed to the person making the offer, $6:$4.

Now let's go back to the two of us sitting across from each other. I get the $10, and I decide to give you $1, and I take $9. What would you do? Do you accept? If you accept, it would make rational economic sense, since you would have one more dollar than if you reject (remember, we both get $0 if you reject).

What the researchers found was that in most cases, people would reject an offer of $3 or less. People cared more about fairness in the interaction than they did about the economically rational move.

The author of Wisdom of the Crowds, James Suroweicki, goes on to explain that they did studies on income disparities between the rich and poor in various industrialized countries, and the United States came out with one of the higher disparities. Poor Americans, though, were among the most satisfied with the income distribution. Why? Suroweicki points to the perception of the American Dream. The poor Americans believed that with hard work and dedication they could be rich too - it was a system that was perceived to be fair (though that's easily disputed).

The perception of fairness is just so powerful. One of the most remarkable moments in American history was the first change in power between political parties. Historically, despots would be overthrown and political factions would war with one another instead of giving away power. In the United States, not a single ounce of blood was shed or riots started over the change in power. It was peaceful; the election of leadership was a system that enough people bought into and believed was fair.

The protests in Iran did not start because Iranians hate Ahmadinejad (though many of the protestors do) - they started because Iranians didn't believe the elections were run fairly. They bought into a system of government where their votes would be counted, and they perceived that the Ayatollah changed the rules. The protests are now about more than just the fairness of the election system, and discontent has certainly been brewing in Iran for a while, but the fairness of the election is what set this whole thing off.

I find it fascinating to look for the perception of fairness and the systems that people buy into to create that perception. The systems are everywhere - from lottery drawings to admissions processes - and don't underestimate the stir people can create if a system isn't fair. Sometimes it can overthrow governments.