There are 1.4 billion people who live on less than $1.25 a day. Name one of them.
The fact that you can’t might be even more significant than generally supposed, as this new paper shows (pdf).
The authors got subjects to play a simple dictator game, in which people were asked to split $10 between themselves and a partner. They found that when the dictator and the partner were not allowed to communicate with each other, dictators handed over an average of $1.53.
However, when subjects could communicate, things changed.
When the dictator was asked to provide an explanation to his partner for his decision, the average donation fell to 60 cents. But when his decision was preceded by a request from his partner, he gave an average of $2.40. And when there was two-way communication, donations were above $2.50.
Communication triggers increased altruism.
This chimes in with a point made by Robert Cialdini in Influence. He tells the story of a woman trying to jump a queue to use a photocopier in a university library. The simple request to jump in elicited 60% compliance. Not bad. But the question “May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies?” got a 93% compliance rate, even though no extra meaningful information was given. People, says Cialdini, like to have reasons for what they do. Even basic communication generates such reasons - a request gives us a reason to donate, but the opportunity to explain gives us a means of justifying our selfishness.
All of which brings me to where I started. The world’s poorest do not communicate with us, which causes us to give less to them than we otherwise would. By contrast, we are bombarded with messages from the well-off, which - on its own - tends to dispose us to be altruistic towards them.
In this sense, inequality perpetuates itself.
The fact that you can’t might be even more significant than generally supposed, as this new paper shows (pdf).
The authors got subjects to play a simple dictator game, in which people were asked to split $10 between themselves and a partner. They found that when the dictator and the partner were not allowed to communicate with each other, dictators handed over an average of $1.53.
However, when subjects could communicate, things changed.
When the dictator was asked to provide an explanation to his partner for his decision, the average donation fell to 60 cents. But when his decision was preceded by a request from his partner, he gave an average of $2.40. And when there was two-way communication, donations were above $2.50.
Communication triggers increased altruism.
This chimes in with a point made by Robert Cialdini in Influence. He tells the story of a woman trying to jump a queue to use a photocopier in a university library. The simple request to jump in elicited 60% compliance. Not bad. But the question “May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies?” got a 93% compliance rate, even though no extra meaningful information was given. People, says Cialdini, like to have reasons for what they do. Even basic communication generates such reasons - a request gives us a reason to donate, but the opportunity to explain gives us a means of justifying our selfishness.
All of which brings me to where I started. The world’s poorest do not communicate with us, which causes us to give less to them than we otherwise would. By contrast, we are bombarded with messages from the well-off, which - on its own - tends to dispose us to be altruistic towards them.
In this sense, inequality perpetuates itself.
Au Contraire, people from nigeria communicate with me daily urging me to donate.
Posted by: Jackart | September 21, 2010 at 02:01 PM
I would imagine that the communicative people from Nigeria are not actually poor but are people who, as a result of their scams, have more money than the recipients of their coomunications. Furthermore, whilst you do now know them, they clearly know details about you. So the hypothesis 'inequality perpetuates itself still holds'
Posted by: Peter | September 21, 2010 at 11:08 PM
There are 1.4 billion people who live on less than $1.25 a day. Name one of them.
Me, just at this moment.
Posted by: jameshigham | September 21, 2010 at 11:36 PM
"There are 1.4 billion people who live on less than $1.25 a day. Name one of them.
Me, just at this moment."
I doubt that. Who paid for the computer / device you wrote that text on? Was it free?
Do you pay no rent? Mortgage? Electricity?
The fact that there are only flippant comments above to this (unlike almost all of your previous posts) seems to prove your thesis.
Posted by: John Terry's Mum | September 23, 2010 at 10:50 AM
Did the research look at the impact of messages from third parties (equivalent of aid agencies) saying why it was important to make a generous offer?
Posted by: john ashcroft | September 24, 2010 at 02:12 PM
Sadly, I do know several people who currently earn less than $1.25 per day. My wife's family have neighbours on less than this.
Not wishing to appear "clever" by mentioning it as I tend to agree with the gist of the piece.
Just how can they be expected to communicate with us? They have nothing to communicate with - they can't afford mobile phones and computers and internet access. Sometimes they can't even afford schools.
Trade Unions? That's dirty commie talk and might get you shot or tortured to death.
Luckily, I'm white so it will just get me thrown out of certain countries and told not to come back.
Posted by: Maaarrghk! | September 25, 2010 at 10:30 PM