Economic polarization and antisocial behavior: An experiment

Abstract

Economic inequality may fuel frustration, possibly leading to anger and antisocial behavior. We experimentally study a situation where only the rich can reduce inequality while the poor can express their discontent by destroying the wealth of a rich counterpart with whom they had no previous interaction. We test whether the emergence of such forms of antisocial behavior depends only on the level of inequality, or also on the conditions under which inequality occurs. We compare an environment in which the rich can unilaterally reduce inequality with one where generosity makes them vulnerable to exploitation by the poor. We find that the rich are expected to be more generous in the former scenario than in the latter, but in fact this hope is systematically violated. We also observe that the poor engage in forms of antisocial behavior more often when reducing inequality would be safe for the rich. These results cannot be rationalized by inequality aversion alone, while they are in line with recent models that focus on anger as the result of the frustration of expectations.

The Broken Chain: Evidence Against Emotionally Driven Upstream Indirect Reciprocity

“…In other experiments, like Dufwenberg et al (2001) or Güth et al (2001), subjects in the role of B cannot directly reciprocate A's unkindness but can retaliate against some other subject C who acted as unkindly as A. Bigoni et al (2021) examine how being 'poor' can lead B to retaliate against a potentially innocent 'rich' A. In Greiner and Levati (2005), B after being treated unkindly by A may treat C unkindly, in the hope that C later harms A.…”

The (negative) effects of inequality on Social Capital

“…More recently, Bigoni et al (2021) allow for an even more extreme version of money burning. All subjects can choose to exit the game and thus no one earns any payoffs.…”

“…The experimental method, on the other hand, allows for causal inference. By randomly allocating participants to environments with high or low economic inequality, the literature has successfully identified how inequality affects, trust, trustworthiness, cooperation, generosity, and (un‐)ethical behaviors (e.g., Bigoni et al., 2021; Côté et al., 2015; Fehr et al., 2020; John et al., 2014; Nishi et al., 2015). Although experimental evidence is subject to the criticism of low external validity, it still provides useful insights into people's responses to inequality and how this is context‐dependent (source of inequality, observability, etc.).…”

“…(2014) find that people do not cheat much when they are equally poor, but when income inequality is salient, people cheat much more to catch up with earnings. Social comparison, envy, and a sense of unfairness often drive these undesirable social outcomes (Bigoni et al., 2021; Gino & Pierce, 2009; Grossman & Komai, 2013; John et al., 2014). Guilt also plays a role when attempts to restore equality are made by the advantaged players (Gino & Pierce, 2009).…”

“…In anonymous settings, people are willing to engage in anti‐social behaviors in the presence of inequality (Abbink & Sadrieh, 2009; Abbink & Herrmann, 2011; Abbink et al., 2011; Fehr, 2018; Gangadharan et al., 2019; Grossman & Komai, 2013; Zizzo, 2003; Zizzo & Oswald, 2001) and often feel justified to do so with the aim of restoring equality (Gino & Pierce, 2009; John et al., 2014). Social comparison, envy, and perceived unfairness often drive these undesirable social outcomes (Bigoni et al., 2021; Gino & Pierce, 2009, 2010; Grossman & Komai, 2013; John et al., 2014).…”