The willingness of those in power to act fairly depends on how easily others can collectively push back against unfair treatment, psychologists have found.

A newly published study by Dr. David Gordon at University of Staffordshire (UK) and Dr. Mikael Puurtinen at the University of Jyväskylä (Finland), investigated the impact of collective action against those in positions of power, using a multiplayer version of a classic psychological experiment called the Ultimatum Game. The findings are published in the journal Social Psychological Bulletin.

Results suggest that the ease of collective action induces more egalitarian behavior by individuals in a position of power and makes those without power less willing to accept unfairness.

Lead researcher Dr. David Gordon said, "From hunter-gatherers to modern large-scale societies, the threat of collective action by others has been a key tool in ensuring that powerful people don't keep everything for themselves. Despite this, it is a surprisingly understudied area within psychology.

"We wanted to answer the question, is our individual idea of what is 'fair' just what we think we can get away with? So, we designed an experiment to test whether the behavior and beliefs of those with and without power changed depending on how easy or difficulty it is for those without power to act collectively.

"Our study shows that 'fairness' is probably less impacted by internal values, but by external pressures. The ease with which people can challenge authority significantly shapes how those in power behave."

The Ultimatum Game usually has two players: a Proposer and Responder. The Proposer is given an allocation of points (e.g., 100) and is asked whether they would like to send any amount the Responder. If the Responder accepts the offer, that is how the points are distributed. If they 'reject' the offer made, then neither player gets anything. In these games, points reflect real money that is paid to participants at the end of the experiment.

The new study made two changes to the Ultimatum Game. First, there were three Responders per group rather than one. Second, to 'reject' the Proposer offer, all three had to pool some of their points collectively. If that pool reached a certain level, the offer was rejected.

"We had three conditions: Easy, Medium and Hard collective action. In the "Easy' condition, responders did not need to invest a great deal of points to have a good chance of rejection," Dr. Gordon explained. "However, in the "Hard' condition, rejection was only likely to succeed if all Responders pooled all their points."

The study found that when potential rejection was easier, Proposers divided resources more equally and, because of this, the money earned between both roles was more equal. When rejection was harder (or impossible), Proposers were less generous and there was a large difference in earnings between the roles.

For responders, ease did not affect their willingness to contribute points to the rejection pool, but when rejection was harder, responders became more accepting of unequal offers as the game progressed.

Once finished, participants were also asked about their motivations. Dr. Gordon commented, "Interestingly, when questioned afterwards, Proposers in the easy condition indicated that they believed it was their duty to be fair. Which is curious, as they didn't really have a choice given how easy an unfair decision was to reject."

He added, however, that it is important to remember the limitations of such studies: "We used point/money to represent the real-life costs associated with actions like campaigning or going on a protest march. Experiments like these are only meant to simulate aspects of the real world, not perfectly represent its complexity."

Behavior may be different if participants had earned their points rather than simply received them, or both Proposers and Responder shared a common identity or wider goal.

"Still," Dr. Gordon continues, "it is a reminder that we should be mindful of attempts to limit the ability to hold power to account. For example, through anti-protest, anti-strike, and voter suppression laws. In an era marked by growing global inequality, this study offers critical insights into the psychology of power, and the mechanisms that can promote more equitable societies."