Dictators invoke entitlement to justify keeping shared stakes for themselves.

Evidence

There is an interesting asymmetry observed in games where participants’ sense of entitlement is grounded on earnings or competition: Dictators keep everything when they have earned the money, but do not give everything when it is the recipient who has earned the money. Why? Of course, it could be mere selfishness. More consistent with the detailed results of these experiments and their interpretation in terms of entitlement and fairness, is the alternative hypothesis that dictators interpret their position as giving them more rights over the money than the recipient. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality, 128

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to Baumard et al.’s mutualistic/entitlement framework the reader is already working with for the fumi-e analysis — rights over resources determine perceived fairness. — connects to: Dictators respect others’ earned property but not windfall money. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 118; Dictators share money only to the extent recipients’ earned it, not to help them. — Nicolas Baumard, A mutualistic approach to morality: The…, 122; Louverture’s turn to dictatorship cost him support among his own people

Broader Connections

  • Louverture’s turn to dictatorship cost him support among his own people #exemplifies (0.80)