IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v9y2010i3p275-296.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emotions, norms, and the genealogy of fairness

Author

Listed:
  • Shaun Nichols

    (University of Arizona, USA, sbn@email.arizona.edu)

Abstract

In The Grammar of Society , Bicchieri maintains that behavior in the Ultimatum game (and related economic games) depends on people’s allegiance to ‘social norms’. In this article, I follow Bicchieri in maintaining that an adequate account of people’s behavior in such games must make appeal to norms, including a norm of equal division; I depart from Bicchieri in maintaining that at least part of the population desires to follow such norms even when they do not expect others to follow them. This generates a puzzle, however: why do norms of equal division have such cultural resilience? One possibility is that our natural emotional propensity for envy makes norms of equal division emotionally appealing. An alternative (but complementary) possibility is that deviations from a norm of equal division would naturally be interpreted as threats to status, which would facilitate the moralization of such norms.

Suggested Citation

  • Shaun Nichols, 2010. "Emotions, norms, and the genealogy of fairness," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 9(3), pages 275-296, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:9:y:2010:i:3:p:275-296
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X09345478
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X09345478
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X09345478?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alex Shaw & Shoham Choshen-Hillel, 2017. "It’s not fair: Folk intuitions about disadvantageous and advantageous inequity aversion," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(3), pages 208-223, May.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:3:p:208-223 is not listed on IDEAS

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:9:y:2010:i:3:p:275-296. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.