[Lee Yongbeom's Psychology of Happiness] Attitudes Toward Coping with Unfairness... Determined by Brain Region Competition

<26>Fairness Is Human Nature
- Why We Get Angry at Injustice

Risking Loss to Resist Injustice
Activation of Insular Cortex in Unfair Situations
Linked to Disgust-Inducing Aversion

Difficult to Refuse Unfair Demands from Superiors
Activation of Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex for Self-Control

Resisting Injustice Through Retaliation
Even Children Desire Fairness

Cheering and Empathizing with Punishment of Wrongdoers
Pursuit of Justice Is Human Nature

Novelist Lee Yong-beom.

In the early 2000s, primatologists Frans de Waal and Sarah Brosnan gave the same task to pairs of tail-twisting monkeys. Upon completing the task, they were given tickets that could be exchanged for food. When both monkeys were given the same food, there was no problem. However, when only one monkey was given sweet grapes, the other monkey threw away the cucumber piece it had received. It was angered by the unfair treatment.

The sense of fairness has a long evolutionary origin. When fairness is violated, we not only feel anger but also punish those who unfairly benefit. In 2000, a research team led by British economist Andrew Oswald brought participants into a laboratory in groups of four. The participants sat in front of computers separated by partitions and started a game. The monitor anonymously displayed the game money of the four players. The game money was paid out in cash after the game ended.

After the first game ended, the researchers randomly gave bonuses to two of the four participants. These two people had to watch the other two receiving bonuses on the monitor without any explanation. The highlight of this experiment came near the end of the game when participants were given the authority to wager their own game money to reduce others' game money. Once this rule was applied, participants who did not receive bonuses actively reduced the game money of those who did. They resisted unfairness despite the loss.

There is an even more interesting experiment. In 2012, researchers at University College London made 60 participants extremely thirsty. Then, they paired them up to share a bottle of water. The two people could share the water through the Ultimatum game. One person proposed a division ratio, and the other could accept or reject it. If accepted, the water was shared accordingly; if rejected, neither could drink. Therefore, it was advantageous for the proposer to suggest a ratio the other would accept. For the responder, it was advantageous to accept any proposal; otherwise, both would go thirsty.

At this time, the responder received a secret message revealing that the proposer actually had a bit more water. As a result, the responder increasingly rejected proposals to prevent the other from drinking water. Even though it was obvious they themselves would not drink water, they chose this option. The desire for fairness was stronger than the physiological need for water.

Fairness is Human Nature

When forced to accept unfair proposals, our inner selves react complexly. In unfair situations, the insula, located deep inside the brain, becomes active. The insula is associated with nausea and disgust. It reacts similarly when experiencing moral disgust. Unfair situations are so repulsive that they cause nausea in anyone. However, when a superior makes an unfair demand, it is difficult to refuse. In such cases, insula activity decreases, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) becomes active. The DLPFC is related to self-control. In unavoidable situations, anger is suppressed, and unfair demands are reluctantly accepted.

In other words, if resistance is possible, the insula activates; if unfairness cannot be avoided, the DLPFC activates. Whether to get angry or endure is determined by the competition between these two brain regions.

People resist unfairness by retaliating against those who violate fairness. In the workplace, it is difficult to resist because personal loss is greater. However, given the opportunity, people willingly retaliate even at a loss.

Retaliation itself brings pleasure. In 2018, a Dutch research team used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to scan the brains of people participating in a computer game. Participants could help others with game money or punish selfish players. Brain scans showed that the ventral striatum activated when punishing selfish players. The ventral striatum is a brain area activated during pleasure. People often feel more pleasure punishing offenders than helping victims. The higher the punishment, the greater the pleasure.

Even young children desire fairness. In 2017, researchers at the Max Planck Institute in Germany showed 17 chimpanzees and 72 children aged 4 to 6 a play featuring a good person, a bad person, and a third-party punisher. The chimpanzees wanted to watch the bad person being punished until the end. Children showed similar reactions only around age six. This suggests that chimpanzees desire fairness, and humans develop this feeling around six years old.

We cheer and empathize when villains are punished. Without this empathy, justice would not have emerged. Some economists say that social justice does not exist in the market. However, pursuing justice is human nature. Society requires justice to be maintained. Therefore, nature has engraved the desire for fairness into the inner selves of social animals. Thanks to this, our ancestors escaped environments where justice and violence were equated and entered an era of peace and cooperation.

Our ancestors, living as hunters, had already established a culture of punishing malicious selfish individuals. Hunted meat was distributed by neutral parties. Abusers of violence formed alliances to eliminate offenders. Through this, we developed a psychology that resists unfairness and dictatorship.

Fairness in the Workplace

People often express outrage at unfair situations but tolerate unfairness at work. Companies evaluate individual performance and reward differentially based on results. This method encourages capable people to expect excessive rewards and incites dissatisfaction among less capable individuals.

A world where rewards are based on ability is inevitably unfair. Therefore, meritocracy can result in all members being dissatisfied with the organization. Satisfaction with rewards depends not on the amount but on fair procedures.

It is difficult to secure fairness at work because each person has different expectations. There is no way to satisfy everyone's expectations. When expectations are unmet, everything feels unfair. Moreover, even a slight crack in fairness greatly affects members.

Experiencing fairness releases neurohormones such as dopamine, serotonin, and oxytocin, increasing bonding and trust. Conversely, when fairness collapses, the stress hormone cortisol increases. Therefore, establishing transparent and fair procedures is the best reward for members rather than increasing rewards.

Rewarding the group instead of individuals based on ability is also a way to maintain fairness. For example, giving bonuses to the entire team and allowing autonomous distribution prevents suspicion among members. Experiments show that when team members decide the distribution method autonomously, they are satisfied whether rewards are distributed based on ability or equally.

Justice is relative. People are lenient toward their own unfair actions but intolerant of others' unfair acts. They are especially furious at public officials who abuse their position for special favors. However, if such things happen to politicians or groups they support, they turn a blind eye.

Nevertheless, we must have hope. According to a 2010 study published in the scientific journal Nature, people are satisfied when they benefit first and then others who were not given opportunities also benefit. Humans are among the fiercest predators. However, they are not vampires who bite others' necks to endlessly fill their own bellies.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.