Since we're into the Australian elections, here's another analogy: ***
When psychologists talk about whether someone is in control of their situation, they talk about _agency_. A person with high agency controls their destiny. A person with low agency is at the mercy of others for their situation. The research in this paper demonstrates that when people have a low degree of control over their situation, they tend to favor equal divisions of resources. When they have a high degree of control, they tend to favor options that give the best possible outcome for everyone concerned, even if they don’t benefit as much as others do. In one study, they had participants perform a task in which they had to estimate the prices of a variety of products. It took about 10 minutes to complete the task, at which point the participants were paid about $3 for their time. (The study was done in Israel, so participants actually received 10 Israeli shekels.) Participants were then told that another person was also going to do the same task. Those in the low agency version of the study were then asked whether they would be more satisfied if the other participant received the same amount of money for completing the task (10 shekels) or more money for completing the task (20 shekels). People were about evenly split between the two options. That is, about half the people wanted the other person to get the same amount of money as they did, while the other half would be happiest if the other person actually got paid more than they did. Participants in the high agency version of the study were told that they could decide whether the other person doing the task would get the same amount of money (10 shekels) or more (20 shekels). In this case, over 80% of the people in the study said that the other person should get more. That is, when people had control, they wanted the outcome that would give the most combined benefit. In another version of the study, the researchers found that high agency even led people to pick options that gave the greatest combined benefit when it would leave them with a lower payment overall. In this study, one option was that the participant would get 11 shekels, while the other person would get 10. The second option was that the participant would get 10 shekels (less money), but the other person would get 20. Participants who had no control over this situation generally preferred the option where they got slightly more money than the other person. Those who could control the payment, though, generally preferred the option where they got less money, but the pair got more money overall. This is a fascinating finding. It suggests that when a group wants to maximize its overall gain, it is important to give everyone some control over how resources are allocated. In this case, people will be most likely to accept an outcome that benefits the group most, even if they themselves don’t get as much of the pie as others do. http://www.smartthinkingbook.com/2013/03/fairness-depends-on-who-is-in-charge.html *** The moral of the story, at least to me, relates to Joao Rita's proposal. To repeat: when a group wants to maximize its overall gain, it is important to give everyone some control over how resources are allocated. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ Scid-users mailing list Scid-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users
