Fairness in Non-human Primates?

Humans have a sense of fairness, i.e. an interest in the ideal of equity. This sense allows them to compare their own efforts and subsequent outcomes with those of others, and thus to evaluate and react to inequity. The question is whether our closest living relatives, the non-human primates, show the behavioural characteristics that might qualify as necessary components to a sense of fairness, such as inequity aversion. In this article, we review the five different experimental approaches to studying behaviours related to fairness in non-human primates, including their underlying logic and main findings that represent the current state of research in this field. In the critical condition of all these studies, a subject and a conspecific partner have either to invest different efforts or receive different outcomes while observing each other. The main question is whether??and how??subjects react to unequal situations that humans would perceive as ??unfair??. Taken together, the results from all five approaches provide only weak evidence for a sense of fairness in non-human primates. Although apes and monkeys are attentive to what the partner is getting, they do not seem to be able or motivated to compare their own efforts and outcomes with those of others at a human level. Even though the debate is still on-going, we believe that a full sense of fairness is not essential for cooperation. Obviously, apes and monkeys are capable of solving problems cooperatively, without a strong, humanlike sense of fairness. They are mainly interested in maximizing their own benefit, regardless of what others may receive. It is thus possible that a sense of fairness only exists rudimentarily in non-human primates.     

The development of empathy and prosocial behavior through humane education,restorative justice,and animal-assisted programs

Literature suggests that developing empathy for animals will result in caring toward other living things. Empathy is often seen as a key building block of prosocial behavior and can be defined as sharing of another person’s emotions and feelings. In older childhood and adolescence, a lack of empathy may have deleterious consequences, leading to antisocial behaviors. However, children and adolescents who exhibit human and non-human animal aggression have often been witness to animal cruelty in the home. When empathy and prosocial behaviors are not learned in the home, there are alternatives to facilitate that process. This study discusses the development of empathy and prosocial behavior by working with animals through the modalities of humane education, restorative justice, and animal-assisted programs. Each modality focuses on building compassion, caring, responsibility, and kindness with the help of animals. Through these violence prevention programs, children and adolescents can develop empathy, which will decrease the likelihood of future aggression.     

Cross-Disciplinary Conversations: A Psychological Perspective on Justice Research with Non-human Animals

Social Justice Research has devoted two recent issues to the topic of inequity responses in non-human animals. The goal of this paper is to provide some commentary from the perspective of psychological theory and research on justice and fairness in humans. In an attempt to build greater cross-disciplinary sharing of ideas and insights, I briefly review the major insights from (a) contemporary research on questions of fairness and justice with non-human primates and how this corpus of knowledge can inform the on-going study of these issues in psychology and related disciplines, and (b) 50-plus years of research on justice and fairness in psychology and related disciplines, and how it can inform contemporary research efforts with non-human animals going forward. The spotlight behavioral economists and justice research with non-human animals places on the primary role of distributive justice is suggestive that it may be time for a renaissance of interest in this topic in psychology and related disciplines. The focus of psychological research on topics such as boundary conditions on equity as key justice concern (e.g., alternative distributive norms such as equality and need), as a well as attention given to procedural, interactional, retributive, and restorative justice, is suggestive that research with non-human animals should broaden its horizons to study alternative conceptions of justice and fairness.     

Fairness in Animals: Where to from Here?

In the last decade, there has been an explosion of work investigating non-human species?? behavior as it relates to the human sense of fairness and justice. This research has provided a much needed evolutionary perspective on humans, and highlighted ways in which humans?? behavior is both similar to and different from that of other species. In this concluding paper, we outline the major threads of the work highlighted in this and the previous special issues of Social Justice Research and provide thoughts on future directions for the field. This is a very exciting time in our exploration of the evolution of human justice and fairness, and we eagerly await the developments of the next decade.     

To Each According to his Need? Variability in the Responses to Inequity in Non-Human Primates

While it is well established that humans respond to inequity, it remains unclear the extent to which this behavior occurs in our non-human primate relatives. By comparing a variety of species, spanning from New World and Old World monkeys to great apes, scientists can begin to answer questions about how the response to inequity evolved, what the function of this response is, and why and how different contexts shape it. In particular, research across non-human primate species suggests that the response is quite variable across species, contexts, and individuals. In this paper, we aim to review these differences in an attempt to identify and better understand the patterns that emerge from the existing data with the goal of developing directions for future research. To begin, we address the importance of considering socio-ecological factors in non-human primates in order to better understand and predict expected patterns of cooperation and aversion to inequity in different species, following which we provide a detailed analysis of the patterns uncovered by these comparisons. Ultimately, we use this synthesis to propose new ideas for research to better understand this response and, hence, the evolution of our own responses to inequity.     

Introduction to “Justice in Animals”

Although much is known about humans?? responses to inequity, little is known about similar responses in other species. The goal of these issues is to bring together researchers focusing on both humans and non-humans to provide a synthesis of our knowledge of non-human responses to inequity to date, and what these data tell us about the evolution of humans?? responses. In this Introduction, I provide a brief background, highlighting both areas in which differences among the related literatures emerge and the ways in which the comparative approach can provide insight in to this question. As becomes clear in these issues, we have reached the point where we can move beyond documenting these responses in other species and develop research programs combining both human and non-human perspectives to better understand the evolution of fairness and justice.     

Non-human Primate Studies Inform the Foundations of Fair and Just Human Institutions

Experiments with human participants have inspired new theories to capture human social, economic, and justice preferences, and shed new light on the foundation of institutions that promote and support large-scale exchange. Another source of valuable data for informing this agenda derives from studies with non-human primates. Here, we argue that primate studies of social preferences provide behavioral evidence supporting the role of the brain as an evolved social record-keeping device. Our argument follows Dickhaut et al. (Accounting Horizons 24:221?C255, 2010), who pointed to record-keeping as critical in enabling large-scale trade. Here, we note that record-keeping also underlies justice judgments in both personal exchange and large-scale trade. The reason is that evaluating whether an allocation is just requires tracking not only benefits that accrue locally, but also benefits for distant others. Further, if record-keeping is an evolved trait (as Dickhaut et al. in Accounting Horizons 24:221?C255, 2010 suggest), then it seems reasonable to expect it to be evidenced not only in humans, but also in non-human primates. Indeed, we argue that evidence from non-human primate research supports the Dickhaut hypothesis, thus supporting the role of justice in the emergence of fair and efficient economic exchange.     

Who Sees What as Fair? Mapping Individual Differences in Valuation of Reciprocity,Charity, and Impartiality

When scarce resources are allocated, different criteria may be considered: impersonal allocation (impartiality), the needs of specific individuals (charity), or the relational ties between individuals (reciprocity). In the present research, we investigated how people’s perspectives on fairness relate to individual differences in interpersonal orientations. Participants evaluated the fairness of allocations based on (a) impartiality, (b) charity, and (c) reciprocity. To assess interpersonal orientations, we administered measures of dispositional empathy (i.e., empathic concern and perspective taking) and Machiavellianism. Across two studies, Machiavellianism correlated with higher ratings of reciprocity as fair, whereas empathic concern and perspective taking correlated with higher ratings of charity as fair. We discuss these findings in relation to recent neuroscientific research on empathy, fairness, and moral evaluations of resource allocations.     

Examining Prosocial Organizational Behavior Among Correctional Officers

Prosocial Organizational Behavior is defined by Brief and Motowidlo (1986) as “behavior which is (a) performed by a member of an organization, (b) directed toward an individual, group, or organization with whom he or she interacts while carrying out his or her organizational role, and (c) performed with the intention of promoting the welfare of the individual, group, or organization toward which it is directed” (p. 71). This study was designed to increase our understanding of prosocial organizational behavior among first line correctional officers. It was hypothesized that the individual difference variables of organizational commitment and the value of achievement would be related to prosocial behavior benefiting the organization and that empathy and the value concern for others would be related to prosocial acts benefiting specific individuals. While no significant correlations were found for achievement, empathy and concern for others, the variable organizational commitment was significantly related to all types of prosocial behaviors observed by supervisors in the work place. Commitment to the organization appears to be one explanation for correctional officers performing prosocial acts on the job.     

Nonhuman Species’ Reactions to Inequity and their Implications for Fairness

It is well known that humans respond negatively to inequity, but until recently little has been known about such responses in animals. Previous observational research in animals has shown hints that animals do respond to inequity. Chimpanzees respond with temper tantrums if they do not get what they desire, social canids refuse to play with individuals who violate social rules, and ravens show third party intervention against norm violations. Recent experimental work with nonhuman primates has given us a more detailed understanding. Capuchin monkeys and chimpanzees both respond negatively to distributional inequity. Moreover, chimpanzees show significant variation in response depending upon the social group they inhabit, with those from a short-term group or a relatively asocial living situation showing a much greater response to inequity than those from a long-term stable group. This mirrors human variation in responses to inequity, which are based upon the quality of the relationship. In this paper, I attempt to define “fairness” in a way that is useful for nonhuman studies and clarify what aspects are being examined in animal societies. I then place the animal work in the context of the studies on humans, especially as related to research in social psychology and economics. I conclude that studying the inequity response in animals is useful for a number of reasons, including the opportunity to gain insight into how this response functions in less complex organisms and social systems and clarification of our understanding of the evolution of this behavior.     

The Influence of the Relationship and Motivation on Inequity Aversion in Dogs

One crucial element for the evolution of cooperation may be the sensitivity to others?? efforts and pay-offs in comparison with one??s own costs and gains. If an individual responds to a disadvantageous reward distribution, then it would likely increase its relative fitness compared with those who do not (Brosnan & de Waal, Nature 428:140, 2004). Recent experimental research indicates that sensitivity toward unequal reward distribution is not a uniquely human trait; non-human primates react to inequity if they witness a conspecific that obtains a more attractive reward for the same effort. However, primates are not the only species that cooperate and thus would benefit from inequity aversion. Canids also frequently cooperate with group members (e.g., wolves, wild dogs, etc.) or humans (domestic dogs), allowing for the possibility that they also are sensitive to the reward distribution. We report the findings of two studies of dogs?? responses to inequity and the social factors that mediate such responses. In the first study, we investigated whether domestic dogs showed a response to the inequity of rewards received for the same action in pairs of familiar dogs. We found that dogs showed significant behavioral differences when tested without food rewards when in the presence of a rewarded partner compared to the baseline and asocial control situations. This indicated that the presence of a rewarded partner matters (Range, Horn, Virányi, & Huber, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(1):340?C345, 2009). In contrast to primates, dogs did not react to differences in the quality of food or effort. In the second study, we analyzed whether individual (motivational or personality) characteristics determined the response of each subject to unequal reward distributions or whether the subject??s responses depended on the specific relationship they had with its partner. We found that individual motivation and the quality of the relationship influenced the dogs?? performance in test conditions, but that these factors varied across the control and reward inequity conditions. Overall, our results suggest that inequity aversion in dogs is conditional on their and their partner??s rewards. Whether inequity aversion is based on the same mechanisms in both humans and non-human primates is still unclear.     

Does Fairness Matter More to Some than to Others? The Moderating Role of Workplace Status on The Relationship Between Procedural Fairness Perceptions and Job Satisfaction

Three field studies explored the relations among status, procedural fairness, and job satisfaction in the workplace. Study 1 revealed that status differences moderated the relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction such that there was a stronger relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction for individuals with higher perceived status than for those with lower perceived status. Study 2 examined a possible underlying psychological mechanism for the moderating effect of perceived status—the importance of procedural fairness deservingness—and found that higher levels of perceived status were associated with a greater sense of deservingness for procedural fairness. Extending the results of the first two studies, Study 3 found that procedural fairness deservingness mediated the moderating effect of status on the relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction. This research contributes to theories of fairness by further illuminating the role of status in affecting reactions to procedural fairness. This research also contributes to our understanding of status in organizations and shows that perceived status can lead to an increased sense of deservingness.     

Structural variations of the VWA locus in humans and comparison with non-human primates

The HUMVWA locus was examined in 160 samples from the Japanese population. A total of 142 fragments were sequenced, and the counterpart sequences were also determined in non-human primates. In humans, 10 different alleles were found; they could be grouped into seven allelic classes based on the total number of repeats. No variation was observed in the alleles 17, 18 and 19, which showed consensus sequence structures and in the allele 14, which showed a different structure. New variation was found in alleles 15, 16, and 20, which had differences occurred in a basic (TCTA)(TCTG)(n) repeat in the 5' side. The counterpart fragments were successfully amplified in three species (chimpanzees, gorilla, and orangutan) out of four kinds of anthropoids, three species (rhesus macaques, Japanese macaques, and green monkey) out of four kinds of old world monkeys, but not in one species of either new world monkey or prosimian. The sizes of the fragments distributed from 92 to 180 bp in non-human primates and showed allelic size differences in four species. The sequence of the 5' flanking region followed by primer sequences in humans and anthropoids, which consisted of 19 bp, was identical in all, but differed from that in old world monkeys. The basic repeat motifs of humans and anthropoids consisted of TCTA, TCTG, and TCCA but that of old world monkeys consisted of TCTG, TCCG and TCCA The structures of humans and anthropoids were essentially similar, but with characteristic difference in each species. Differences in the allelic structures of old world monkeys were complex. Seven different alleles were observed in two rhesus and two Japanese macaques and one type of allele was observed in two green monkeys. Duplication of more than two repeat units of 4 bp was found in an allele of an old world monkey. These data illuminate interesting features of mutational changes in STRs during the long generations and also some insight into evolutional aspects of primates.     

The social and emotional context of childhood and adolescent animal cruelty: is there a link to adult interpersonal crimes?

The link between early animal abuse and later violence toward humans may depend on how acts of animal cruelty are experienced by those whose behavior demonstrates this graduation. Unfortunately, the research investigating the social and emotional context for the youthful commission of animal cruelty as it escalates to adult interpersonal violence is relatively nonexistent. Using 112 cases from a larger sample of 261 inmates surveyed at both medium and maximum security prisons in a southern state, the present study examined the effects of age of onset and frequency of animal cruelty, the covertness of animal cruelty, the commission of animal cruelty within a group or in isolation, and empathy for the abused animals. Inmates who had covered up their childhood and adolescent animal cruelty were more likely to have been convicted of repeated acts of interpersonal violence, demonstrating that the role of empathy and individuals present during acts of animal cruelty were less important than concealing those acts.     

A Biosemiotic Body of Law: The Neurobiology of Justice

We offer a theory regarding the symbolism of the human body in legal discourse. The theory blends legal theory, the neuroscience of empathy, and biosemiotics, a branch of semiotics that combines semiotics with theoretical biology. Our theory posits that this symbolism of the body is not solely a metaphor or semiotic sign of how law is cognitively structured in the mind. We propose that it also signifies neurobiological mechanisms of social emotion in the brain that are involved in the social and moral decision-making and behavior that law generally seeks to govern. Specifically, we hypothesize that the symbol of a collective human body in the language of law signifies neural mechanisms of pain empathy which generate a virtual, neurally simulated, emotional sense of sharing the feelings or pain of others and of thereby being one-in-body with or virtually equal to them. We speculate that this may be the neural basis of what is signified in legal and political theory as the “body politic” or “sense of equality,” because neuroscience and psychiatry further suggest that such pain empathy may provide the natural, emotional motivation to think and act in a rights-based manner. We conclude that misunderstanding of these neural mechanisms of pain empathy and related misinterpretation of this corporeal symbolism for the same may have long resulted in legal discourse that misinterprets the function of “pain” in the law and misinterprets the associated positive law, specifically the law regarding individual, equality-based rights and criminal justice, in particular, punishment theory.     

The (Limited) Space for Justice in Social Animals

While differentialists deny that non-linguistic animals can have a sense of justice, assimilationists credit some animals with such an advanced moral attitude. We approach this debate from a philosophical perspective. First, we outline the history of the notion of justice in philosophy and how various facets of that notion play a role in contemporary empirical investigations of justice among humans. On this basis, we develop a scheme for the elements of justice-relevant situations and for criteria of justice that should be fruitful in studying both humans and animals. Furthermore, we investigate the conceptual connections between a sense of justice, on the one hand, and various other mental powers, on the other, and indicate which of the latter may be beyond the ken of animals. Next, we consider recent empirical research on justice-related phenomena in animals. We argue for an intermediate position: While animals can at least in principle satisfy some preconditions of justice (intentional action, rule-following), others are problematic, notably possessing a notion of desert. A space for justice in social animals exists, yet it is rather limited compared to the rich cultures of justice in humans. Finally, we reflect on some actual or alleged implications of research on animal justice. As regards justice in humans, one should avoid a simplistic image of ??natural justice?? as boiling down to equal allocation of goods. As regards justice for animals, one should be weary of the contractualist assumption that only those capable of justice themselves are deserving of ??just?? treatment.     

Visibility and Invisibility of Animals in Traditional Chinese Philosophy and Law

There is yet to be any animal welfare or protection law for domestic animals in China, one of the few countries in the world today that do not have such laws. However, in Chinese imperial law, there were legal provisions adopted more than a 1,000 years ago for the care and treatment of domestic working animals. Furthermore, in traditional Chinese philosophy, animals were regarded as constituent part of the organic whole of the cosmos by ancient Chinese philosophers who saw no strict delineation between humans and non-human animals. Notwithstanding, the attitude and practice towards animals in ancient Chinese life was also ambivalent and was predicated upon the practical utility of animals for the service of humans and society. Such practice can be seen through the legal provisions in imperial China. This paper first discusses animal’s place in traditional Chinese philosophy and then in Chinese imperial law. It raises the issue of the gap discernable from the philosophical thought on animals and practice regarding animals in everyday life in China. The paper argues that given the gap in perception and attitude regarding animals, law can play an important role that moral teaching has not been able to achieve.     

The Neurobiology of Fairness and Social Justice: An Introduction

The study of social justice has always been an interdisciplinary undertaking, but in recent years neurobiologists have joined scholars and scientists from other areas to tackle complex questions concerning fairness, empathy, equality, hierarchy, and ideological conflict and polarization. By synthesizing insights from multiple, mutually informative levels of analysis, it is possible to shed new light on basic biological processes that reflect, inspire, and inhibit the pursuit of a more just society. With this special issue we highlight groundbreaking research on the neurobiology of fairness and social justice, bringing together six articles that address core themes of social justice, including individual variability in definitions of fairness, the genetic basis of economic egalitarianism, neural bases of empathy in environmental and intergroup domains, and the neural and genetic correlates of ideological polarization. Taken in conjunction, these diverse contributions bring multiple theoretical perspectives and research methods to bear on the shared goal of understanding and promoting social justice.     

正义感、移情与司法裁判

司法裁判并非是一项纯粹理性的事业,属于情感范畴的正义感构成了法官裁判的重要视角,在裁判工作中发挥着认知和指引的关键性作用.从情感理论上来说,正义感的形成主要赖于移情这一情感现象,而移情的展开需以无偏私性和信息充分为必要条件,这样才可能导向正义的个案裁判.不过,正义感的运用并非不受理性的约束,它只是为裁判提供了一种行动计划和倾向,法官仍然要诉诸于以合法性思维为框架的法律理性论证.因此,司法裁判的作出最终依赖于正义感与法律理性论证之间的良性互动.     

The emotional motivation of righteous behavior

A distinction is made between two types of prosocial behavior: personal-helping and righteous behavior. Past studies suggest that sympathy may motivate personal helping but not righteous behavior. The latter may be better predicted by feelings of moral outrage and existential guilt. An experiment was designed to motivate a piece of righteous behavior, the writing of a political letter to stop the testing of nuclear weapons. A series of premeasures ascertained strength of attitude, sense of efficacy, acceptance of responsibility, and prior antinuclear behavior. Subjects who supported a nuclear freeze were exposed to material advocating a nuclear test ban, a video of a congressional aide who argued for the efficacy of writing letters to congressional representatives, and emotionally arousing material on the bombing of Hiroshima. After answering a questionnaire that included items to measure emotional state, subjects were individually given the opportunity to write a letter as they were waiting to be interviewed. Social pressure was deliberately minimized. Extent of moral outrage predicted both previous behavior and letter-writing behavior during the experiment. It combined with previous behavior and sense of efficacy to predict 56% of the variance in experimental behavior: Neither sympathy nor existential guilt were significantly related to this righteous behavior.