Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Rank Reversal Aversion and Fairness in Hierarchies

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Despite the aversion to inequality in humans, social hierarchies are a fundamental feature of their social life. Several mechanisms help explain the prevalence of hierarchies over egalitarianism. Recent work has suggested that while people tend to reduce resource inequalities when given the opportunity, they are reluctant to do so when it results in a reversal of social ranks (Xie et al., 2017). In this study, we explore how the way in which hierarchies are established influences this mechanism. We propose that aversion to rank reversal depends on whether rank asymmetry is fair or unfair.

Methods

In an online study, participants read 12 vignettes depicting six hypothetical hierarchies that varied in fairness. In each vignette, one individual was endowed with more resources than another individual, and participants could reduce that inequality by transferring resources from the higher-ranked individual to the lower-ranked one. In half of the vignettes, reducing the inequality led to a reversal of ranks, while in the other half it did not.

Results

We observed that participants were more likely to reverse ranks and reduce inequality when the hierarchy was perceived as unfair.

Conclusion

Overall, our results suggest that considerations of fairness guide participants’ in their decision to reverse ranks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon request.

References

  • Anderson, C., Hildreth, J. A. D., & Howland, L. (2015). Is the desire for status a fundamental human motive? A review of the empirical literature. Psychological bulletin, 141(3), 574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, M. M., Liesch, R., & Scheve, K. F. (2018). Inequality and redistribution behavior in a give-or-take game. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(14), 3611–3616

  • Boehm, C. (1993). Egalitarian behavior and reverse dominance hierarchy.Current Anthropology, 34(3)

  • Bolton, G. E., Brandts, J., & Ockenfels, A. (2005). Fair procedures: Evidence from games involving lotteries. The Economic Journal, 115(506), 1054–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M., & Sommerville, J. (2014). “I pick you”: The impact of fairness and race on infants’ selection of social partners. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00093

  • Buyukozer Dawkins, M., Sloane, S., & Baillargeon, R. (2019). Do Infants in the First Year of Life Expect Equal Resource Allocations? Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://www.frontiersin.org/article/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00116

  • Charafeddine, R., Mercier, H., Clément, F., Kaufmann, L., Reboul, A., & Van der Henst, J. B. (2016). Children’s allocation of resources in social dominance situations. Developmental Psychology, 52(11), 1843–1857. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J. T., & Tracy, J. L. (2014). Toward a unified science of hierarchy: Dominance and prestige are two fundamental pathways to human social rank. The psychology of social status (pp. 3–27). Springer

  • Cheng, N., Wan, Y., An, J., Gummerum, M., & Zhu, L. (2021). Power grabbed or granted: Children’s allocation of resources in social power situations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 210, 105192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, C. T., Fowler, J. H., Johnson, T., McElreath, R., & Smirnov, O. (2007). Egalitarian motives in humans. nature, 446(7137), 794–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feather, N. T. (1994). Attitudes toward high achievers and reactions to their fall: Theory and research concerning tall poppies. Advances in experimental social psychology (26 vol., pp. 1–73). Elsevier

  • Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2004). Third-party punishment and social norms. Evolution and human behavior, 25(2), 63–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The quarterly journal of economics, 114(3), 817–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, R., Hanke, K., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Cultural and institutional determinants of social dominance orientation: A cross-cultural meta-analysis of 27 societies. Political Psychology, 33(4), 437–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological review, 99(4), 689–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halevy, N., Chou, Y., E., & Galinsky, D., A (2011). A functional model of hierarchy: Why, how, and when vertical differentiation enhances group performance. Organizational Psychology Review, 1(1), 32–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamann, K., Warneken, F., Greenberg, J. R., & Tomasello, M. (2011). Collaboration encourages equal sharing in children but not in chimpanzees. Nature, 476(7360), 328–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and brain sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., Cardenas, J. C., Gurven, M., Gwako, E., & Henrich, N. (2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312(5781), 1767–1770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huppert, E., Cowell, J. M., Cheng, Y., Contreras-Ibáñez, C., Gomez-Sicard, N., Gonzalez-Gadea, M. L., Huepe, D., Ibanez, A., Lee, K., & Mahasneh, R. (2019). The development of children’s preferences for equality and equity across 13 individualistic and collectivist cultures. Developmental science, 22(2), e12729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kajanus, A., Afshordi, N., & Warneken, F. (2020). Children’s understanding of dominance and prestige in China and the UK. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(1), 23–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiatpongsan, S., & Norton, M. I. (2014). How much (more) should CEOs make? A universal desire for more equal pay. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 587–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimbrough, E. O., Sheremeta, R. M., & Shields, T. W. (2014). When parity promotes peace: Resolving conflict between asymmetric agents. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 99, 96–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Allison, S. T., Eylon, D., Goethals, G. R., Markus, M. J., Hindle, S. M., & McGuire, H. A. (2008). Rooting for (and then abandoning) the underdog. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(10), 2550–2573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G. F., Thompson, L., & Bazerman, M. H. (1989). Social utility and decision making in interpersonal contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(3), 426–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.3.426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucca, K., Pospisil, J., & Sommerville, J. A. (2018). Fairness informs social decision making in infancy. PLOS ONE, 13(2), e0192848. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). 8 social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management annals, 2(1), 351–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mascaro, O., & Csibra, G. (2012). Representation of stable social dominance relations by human infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(18), 6862–6867. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113194109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meristo, M., Strid, K., & Surian, L. (2016). Preverbal infants’ ability to encode the outcome of distributive actions. Infancy, 21(3), 353–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton, M. I., Neal, D. T., Govan, C. L., Ariely, D., & Holland, E. (2014). The not-so-common-wealth of Australia: Evidence for a cross-cultural desire for a more equal distribution of wealth.Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy

  • Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018). Prolific. Ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of personality and social psychology, 67(4), 741–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pun, A., Birch, S. A., & Baron, A. S. (2016). Infants use relative numerical group size to infer social dominance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(9), 2376–2381

  • R. Core Team (2018). Package “Stats.”The R Stats Package, https://www.R-project.org

  • Schäfer, M., Haun, D. B., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Fair is not fair everywhere. Psychological science, 26(8), 1252–1260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid Mast, M. (2004). Men are hierarchical, women are egalitarian: An implicit gender stereotype. Swiss Journal of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 63(2), 107

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, A., Montinari, N., Piovesan, M., Olson, K. R., Gino, F., & Norton, M. I. (2014). Children develop a veil of fairness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, A., & Olson, K. (2014). Fairness as partiality aversion: The development of procedural justice. Journal of experimental child psychology, 119, 40–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1994). Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? Journal of personality and social psychology, 67(6), 998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius, J., Sinclair, S., & Pratto, F. (2006). Social Dominance Orientation, Gender, and Increasing Educational Exposure 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(7), 1640–1653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Starmans, C., Sheskin, M., & Bloom, P. (2017). Why people prefer unequal societies. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(4), 1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomsen, L., Frankenhuis, W. E., Ingold-Smith, M. C., & Carey, S. (2011). Big and mighty: Preverbal infants mentally represent social dominance. Science, 331(6016), 477–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M., & Vaish, A. (2013). Origins of human cooperation and morality. Annual review of psychology, 64(1), 231–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulber, J., Hamann, K., & Tomasello, M. (2017). Young children, but not chimpanzees, are averse to disadvantageous and advantageous inequities. Journal of experimental child psychology, 155, 48–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Berkel, L., Crandall, C. S., Eidelman, S., & Blanchar, J. C. (2015). Hierarchy, dominance, and deliberation: Egalitarian values require mental effort. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(9), 1207–1222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. (2009). Manual-Python 3. CreateSpace

  • Vandello, J. A., Goldschmied, N. P., & Richards, D. A. (2007). The appeal of the underdog. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(12), 1603–1616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Rueden, C. (2020). Making and unmaking egalitarianism in small-scale human societies. Current opinion in psychology, 33, 167–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, W., Ho, B., Meier, S., & Zhou, X. (2017). Rank reversal aversion inhibits redistribution across societies. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(8), 1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitek, E. M., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2012). The fluency of social hierarchy: The ease with which hierarchical relationships are seen, remembered, learned, and liked. Journal of personality and social psychology, 102(1), 98–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre de Recherche en Neurosciences de Lyon - CNRS UMR5292, Inserm U1028, Université Claude Bernard de Lyon, Université Jean Monnet de Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France

    Alexandre Foncelle, Elodie Barat & Jean-Baptiste Van der Henst

  2. École de Psychologues Praticiens – Institut Catholique de Paris, Paris, France

    Elodie Barat

  3. Institut des Sciences Cognitives Marc Jeannerod – CNRS UMR 5229, Université Claude Bernard de Lyon, Villeurbanne, France

    Jean-Claude Dreher

Authors
  1. Alexandre Foncelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elodie Barat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean-Claude Dreher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jean-Baptiste Van der Henst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Alexandre Foncelle or Jean-Baptiste Van der Henst.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding authors state that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Foncelle, A., Barat, E., Dreher, JC. et al. Rank Reversal Aversion and Fairness in Hierarchies. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology 8, 520–537 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-022-00206-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-022-00206-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation