Winners overlook rigged games’ lack of fairness, study finds |

Winners overlook rigged games’ lack of fairness, study finds

Associated Press
In this Wednesday, Feb. 27, 2013, file photo, a dealer resets a deck of cards at a casino in Las Vegas. A Cornell University study released on Wednesday, July 17, 2019, created a card game that literally stacked the deck in favor of winners. Yet 60% of those winners thought it was fair, even though they were shown how the deck was stacked. Sociologists say the study tells us about privilege and how we perceive fairness.

WASHINGTON — When it comes to fairness and privilege, a new study finds it really is not about how you play the game. It’s about whether you win or lose.

A new experiment, played out as a card game, shows that even when the deck is literally stacked in people’s favor — and they know it — most winners still think it’s fair anyway. Losers don’t, according to a study in Wednesday’s journal Science Advances.

The study “tells us something about privilege and about society,” said Bates College sociologist Emily Kane, who wasn’t part of the research. “It reminds us how powerful perceptions are — it’s not just what is happening that matters, it’s often more a matter of what we think is happening,” she wrote in an email.

The research shows how people who have advantages in life can give themselves too much credit in explaining how they got so far, Kane said.

It all started when some Cornell University sociology graduate students were playing a card game that rewards someone who has already won. Study lead author Mario D. Molina noticed that people who won — because the rules benefited them — thought it was their skill, when it mostly wasn’t.

So Molina and colleagues created their own game that would take away randomness as much as possible and rewarded winners by letting them discard their worst cards and take away the losers’ best cards. Nearly 1,000 players were shown how it works and how the game was rigged to help the winners.

The players were asked if the game was fair, based on luck or based on skill. Molina said 60% of the winners thought the game was fair, compared with 30% of the losers. And when it came to explaining who won, winners attributed it to talent three times more often than losers.

Once the game got even more unfair, with a second round of card exchanges to further benefit the winners, far fewer winners thought the game was fair. Molina called that “the Warren Buffett effect,” after the billionaire who has called on higher taxes for the rich to level the playing field.

Molina said this is just a game and noted that the players tended to be younger, whiter and richer than America as a whole — so using these results to explain society more broadly could be too much of a leap. Yet he said it is useful when thinking about economic privilege.

The main message of the study was pessimistic, said Eliot Smith, a professor of brain sciences at Indiana University who wasn’t involved in the research: People have problems making moral judgments about fairness when it benefits them.

Categories: News | Health Now
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.