An economic experiment carried out with more than 7,500 participants from 34 countries showed that individuals with greater resources chose private solutions almost twice as often as those with fewer resources. The game simulated decisions about collective problems, such as those related to climate change. Participantes Rich people invested more in options that benefit only themselves.
The study divided players into groups of four, with two considered rich and two poor based on the initial amount available. Eles decided over 10 rounds how much to invest in a public solution, which benefits the entire group, or in a private solution, which only protects those who invest enough. The objective was to avoid the total loss of remaining resources if the group did not reach specific goals.
Main results of the experiment
Participants with the highest initial endowment opted for the private solution almost twice as often as participants with the lowest endowment. Essa difference occurred consistently in the 34 countries involved. Como Consequently, total investment in the public solution decreased and wealth inequality within groups increased at the end of the game.
The researchers noted that the presence of private options makes it more rational for those with more resources to protect themselves individually. Isso Reduces the proportional contribution for actions that benefit everyone. The pattern repeated itself regardless of whether the initial largest resource came from luck or performance on a previous task.
- Rich participants contributed proportionally less to the public solution
- Investment in private solutions was greater among those who started with more resources
- Inequality within groups grew in all countries tested
- Choice for private solutions occurred even when the public solution would be more efficient for the group as a whole
Game design details
Each group needed to reach a collective goal of 160 monetary units for the public solution or 60 units for the individual private solution. The rich started with 120 units and the poor with 80. In each round, it was possible to contribute up to 20 units for each type of solution. Contributions were non-refundable.
If the group reached the public goal, everyone kept the rest of the resources. Quem reached the private goal also protected its remaining resources. Caso no target was reached, there was a simulated loss of the remaining amounts. The game reproduces real collective action dilemmas, in which individual solutions compete with joint efforts.
Influence of the origin of wealth
The researchers also tested whether how rich the participant became affected their choices. Metade of the groups had inequality defined by draw and the other half by performance on a task that required effort. Não There was a significant difference in choice patterns between the two scenarios.
This finding indicates that the effect does not depend on perceived deservingness. Access to more resources alone encourages the search for individual protection. The study was led by Eugene Malthouse, Universidade, Nottingham, with participation from researchers such as Nobuyuki Hanaki, Universidade, Osaka.
Cooperation and support mechanisms
Despite the results on preference for private solutions, the experiment identified a tendency towards greater cooperation when other participants also invest in the public solution from the beginning. So-called early public investment helped sustain collective contributions across multiple groups.
This dynamic suggests that joint initial actions can offset the appeal of private options. The authors highlight that the phenomenon occurred in a similar way in different cultural and economic contexts. The work was published in the magazine Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Implications for global problems
The game simulated situations such as combating climate change, in which investments in public goods involve reducing emissions and private solutions include measures such as building barriers or individual relocation. Quando Private options are available, those with more resources tend to prioritize them.
This can weaken the collective effort and leave populations with fewer resources more exposed to shared risks. The researchers point out that specific policies can mitigate this effect, encouraging initial contributions to public solutions. The study involved teams from different institutions around the world.
The experiment highlights patterns observed on a large scale and contributes to the understanding of how inequalities influence decisions in contexts of collective action. The results are based on data collected from university participants in 34 countries.
