Adversity and Its Effects in a Man for All Seasons

A Man for all Seasons is a play that was written by prolific English writer, Robert Bolt. Born in 1924, he worked as an insurance agent before joining the World War II as a Royal Air Force officer. He worked as a school teacher, after his time at the force, before embarking on writing this particular play. The same year he wrote it; it featured as a play in London and New York. It is crucial to understand the background of the play to understand it with more power. According to Kincaid, it is useful to understand that for many years in England there had been hostility to the clergy, because the Church had great worldly powers, property, and wealth, while many members of the clergy were corrupt and self-seeking. (11) With this play, Bolt wanted to bring out the strong characteristic steadiness of standing on one’s feet and owns ground in what one believes irrespective of what others think or say. The main character, Sir Thomas More, is a judge who is steadfast and firm in his beliefs. He is not easily swayed by people’s opinions, influence, threats, and intimidation. He objects to endorsing King Henry VIII’s plan of divorcing his wife, Catherine of Aragon, and marry Anne Boleyn. The King having promoted Sir Thomas to the position of Lord Chancellor of England, and Thomas being his long standing friend, will automatically guarantee Sir Thomas agreeing to support him. He wants Thomas to publicly endorse his divorce plan, but Thomas More feels Henry’s actions are not justified, and the divorce is not appropriate. This is backed by Greene when he affirms that even as Nobles, universities and the Clergy fell into line behind the King, More’s silence on the matter resounded thunderously. Despite the king’s unhappiness with More’s decision to remain silent, he stands firm and refuse to do what everybody else did even though the pressure on his family grew stronger and stronger (7). This shows his autonomy and independence in making his own informed decisions unlike the likes of Cromwell and Richard Rich who act as the King’s â€Å"yes men† doing all his bidding. Cromwell, the king’s intimate, works for the king to have More falsely persecuted and beheaded. We will develop here three main kind of adversities that More had to face: authoritarian, Family, himself. Sir Thomas More’s strong character and moral integrity are alluded to by the title of the play, A Man for all Seasons. The title is a reference to More’s never changing character and direction in life. According to Miller, More was a character with extraordinary blending of gaiety and gravity and for his flexible adaptation to company of all sorts. However, he knew how to compromise and not go out of his way; he did not bend rules, adopt or change for the sake of anyone, even King Henry VIII apart from his own God (26-27). This statement concisely puts down his beliefs and what kind of person he was. Thomas works within the boundaries of his own principles and in the end, dies for what he believes in. Lee compares Sir Thomas More with Roper. At the beginning of the play when the two of them are talking, Roper seems really devoted to his principles but as the play continues on, we learn that Roper is in fact not as true to his values as Sir Thomas More is. Lee talks about the â€Å"Romanticized† vision of a prison that Roper has compare to the reality of what More is living. When Roper visited More in prison he even encouraged More to give up when he saw the â€Å"awfulness of prison†. (319). His obstinate sense of self -righteous and defense for justice sees him earn many foes and adversaries. Just like Roper, many people pretending to be More’s friends turned out to become his enemies plotting behind his back for his downfall. His family, friends, and colleagues turn their back on him, and the adversaries from both his seniors and juniors continue swelling. The following are some of the most significant and outstanding adversaries Judge Sir Thomas More earns himself and faces off with. His many adversaries rise from his strong stands and refusal to bow down to the social order. His main and most prominent adversaries are the authorities and technocrats in the country. Upon meeting with Cardinal Wosley, then the Lord Chancellor of England; Thomas More reviews the decision by King Henry to divorce his wife Catherine and marry Anne and the subsequent decisions. He states his disapproval and says he doubts the Pope will give his assent on this divorce as it is confirmed by Greene when he describes the King’s feeling about the decision of Rome as ‘Frustrated’. The king was very disappointed with the decision of the Clergy and Henry vainly sought to increase the pressure on Rome. When that failed, Henry began to target the English Clergy. (7) It is from this particular point that Wosley declares a witch hunt on the judge, having him investigated and falsely accused of receiving bribes, and insult towards the King. These represent the authoritarian adversary, the adversaries that Sir Thomas More has to face that hold the keys of the government and have power and authority to hurt him according to the law. Although they are not following the law when they persecute him, they pretend to do so. The other adversary in the authority level that Sir Thomas encounters is King Henry VIII’s closest confidant, the recently promoted cardinal secretary, Cromwell. He is used by King Henry as a tool to fight and suppress Sir Thomas due to his stand against the King’s planned divorce. Here we are going to see the kind of adversity that was apply to More by his so-called friends in their thirst for power, they did not hesitate to step over him on their ascension to power. Cromwell plans for Thomas’ downfall by collaborating with the corruptible Richard Rich who is a low ranking functional authority. Cromwell offers Richard an opportunity to advance his career and climb the social ladder in exchange for information about Thomas and testifying falsely against him. Cromwell goes ahead and come up with a false case of how Sir Thomas received a bribe and brings to evidence: the silver cup that Sir Thomas gave Rich. At this point as readers we are already amazingly disgusted by the machinery these two people are putting together to get Sir Thomas More down. Eventually, this leads to the conviction and beheading of Thomas. On this matter, Abraham Lincoln said: â€Å"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power†. Rich was a good men, probably able to stand adversity with a good self-esteem, but when power was proposed to him, he gave up his conviction. The trut however, is that Thomas received the silver cup oblivious that it was a bribe. Yet, on realizing, he gave the cup to Richard as he did not want anything to do with it. Cromwell, goes ahead to meet with the Duke of Norfolk, another supposed friend, to get him to fix More in a bad light concerning the bribery scheme. The duke, however, proves to him that silver cup, in fact, was passed on by the judge as soon as he realized it was a bribe. Cromwell insists that the duke cooperates and participates in the grand scheme to bring Thomas down. This is because King Henry expects the duke of Norfolk to fully participate in the persecution of Thomas. Thomas woes continue pilling up when Signor Chapuys turns against him and joins the witch hunt. Signor Chapuys’ adversary towards Thomas arises from the breaking of the illusion that Chapuys was under concerning Thomas’ friendship towards the Spanish. Cengage Learning explains the relationship on Sir Thomas More with Chapuys as follow: In speaking with More, Chapuys tries to hide his true motives which are political, with flattery and references to religion. Because he is devious himself, he hears hidden meanings in what More says which leads to misunderstanding. 14) This quote explains why Chapuys did not understand More. He was trying to prove that More aleegiance to spain was no longer and so Chapuys thought that he had found an ally in Thomas to protect the interest of Catherine of whom he was cautious and concerned that she is embarrassed or insulted by King Henry as she is the aunt of the king of Spain. The Spanish ambassador states that he was unsuccessful in per suading More to support Spain saying, as it is affirmed by the sentence Chapuys uses in the play when he says, â€Å"Goodness can be difficulty† (Bolt, 62). Thomas’ refusal to accept the letter of appreciation that is sent by the King of Spain is also a possible source of the aggravated hostility from the Spanish diplomat, Signor Chapuys. All of these men are complotting against someone they knew, someone they worked with, and for some of them someone they had a close relationship with. Adversity can come from authority, friends and sometimes both. The other adversary of Thomas is King Henry VIII who is Thomas’ friend and King.. The king desires to get a son as the heir that his wife Catherine has not borne. He, therefore, plans to get a second wife to fulfill this, and it is here he seeks the support of the lord chancellor of England, Sir Thomas More. More is a devout Christian, and of strong moral standing; hence, he does not approve of this. Although he does not publicly or openly voice his displeasure, he is silently opposed to this. Johnson explains that it is probably to protect his family the best he can that he acts like that, â€Å"He is well aware of dangers on the horizon but does not want to cause them to worry by addressing the dangers directly. 7) At first, More enjoys a somewhat ‘safe zone; by remaining silent about the King’s plans. This comfort zone is trespassed when the King demands the vocal support of the wise, respect public figure. When the King visits him at Chelsea home, in London, More tells the king he will not agree to his plan. The King storms out in anger telling More that he will only leave him alone if he does not openly voice his disagreemen t for his planned divorce of Catherine and marriage to Anne Boleyn. This aggravates and worsens their relationship, which had been set on the rocks earlier. This was when Thomas More had declared he was going to resign if the Church of England Bishops were going to go along with the Parliament’s Act of Supremacy. This Notorious act puts the King as the absolute head of the Church of England, as well as the overall ruler of England State: the genesis of their conflict. This hostility towards the Judge comes to a boiling point where he flatly refuses to take an oath of allegiance in the King’s name, another creation of the King’s puppet parliament. Boughey posits that, â€Å"Henry VIII Wanted to look powerful and strong. [†¦] Henry VIII was a powerful king who was completely in charge of England. Nobody was stronger than Henry VIII, not even Parliament. (1). This is how the king was perceived in real life, probably it was the reason why he was described like that in the play and Sir Thomas More was described then stronger than the parliament and stronger than the King. This is the proof that Thomas More stood strong against the adversity even when it was his King and friend. This adversity can represent a symbol between the King and More with the king symbolically representing the monarchial absolute power and More representing civil law. Thomas’ refuses to have the King rule even his conscience. As a result, he is ready and willing to keep his honesty at all costs, even if it means losing his life. Kincaid expresses Thomas More’s willingness to die for his principles in this little paragraph: When More’s wife was sent to prison to visit him in the hope that she would persuade him to sign the Oath, she told him that he might, if he signit, have another twenty years of life. More answered with his usual wit that if she had offered him a thousand years, he might have been tempted, but twenty years in exchange for an eternity of damnation was a very poor bargain. (9). The kings tries to give More a chance but he refuses and choses to remain faithful to his principles. Thus, coming back to our symbolism, the civil law win over the absolute power meaning that absolute power in one’s hand can be lethal. Thomas’ ethics and integrity is based on a strong base. In the play, other characters appear to be good people but do not have as strong a base as the Judge. The duke of Norfolk for example seem to be a good guy. However, he does not understand More’s motivation. As Lee puts it, â€Å" The behavior of the duke of Norfolk are dictated by yet another good, the benefit of friends. The constant for Norfolk is the preservation of friendship with the people of the here and now, and thus, he cannot comprehend more’s insistence on risking those friendships for his love of a heavenly God. (313).

Tips How to Write an Interview Essay (Free Example)

Tips How to Write an Interview Essay (Free Example) Helpful Advice When You Need To Write an Interview Essay CONTENTS: How to Write an Interview Essay: Suggestions for Beginners Craft a Winning Interview Essay: 8 Helpful Tips Four Common Interview Paper Example Types Leave Your Troubles Behind and Entrust!Planning to write an interview essay? These kinds of essays can really benefit you no matter what field of work you plan to pursue after graduation. For instance, if you are hoping to become a journalist or a TV personality, you need to be able to ask thought-provoking, penetrating questions that help you gain insight. Furthermore, if your goal is to work in human resources, an interview essay is a great way to practice asking questions that you will one day ask job candidates. After all, you will need to be able to figure out which prospective employees best fit into the company culture and have the proper mindset to carry out their responsibilities. Asking appropriate questions is key to this. There are several angles that you can take, and this article will cover several of them. If you are seeking some helpful tips to write an interview essay, you have come to the right place. How to Write an Interview Essay: Suggestions for Beginners When you are a student, your professor will sometimes assign you an interview essay. As already mentioned, knowledge on how to write an interview essay will come in really handy in a variety of professions. When your professor assigns an interview essay, sometimes they will provide you with a topic, but often they will permit you to choose the topic as long as it is relevant to the class. As soon as you have decided upon your topic, do some research and seek out an expert who will allow greater insight into the topic under discussion. For instance, if you want some greater insight on a topic related to biology, you are likely to find a biology professor at your college who would be eager to answer your questions. Of course, it is essential that you give your questions a lot of thought. This means doing some homework and gaining a general understanding about the subject matter and then asking the interviewee to elaborate. After all, if you keep things too general or basic, or clearly demonstrate that you did not take the time to find some background information about the topic or even the individual being interviewed, they will likely see the interview as a waste of their time. With that in mind, here are some general decisions that you need to make: Decide who you want to interview Develop a list of questions Choose the interview essay format (narrative, career, questions-answers, etc.) Agree upon the location and date of the interview Craft a Winning Interview Essay: 8 Helpful Tips Note that writing an interview essay requires a different structure as compared to a conventional academic essay such as an expository, argumentative, etc. Four Common Interview Paper Example Types Narrative Format In this type of interview paper, you are not simply listing your questions and the interviewees answers; instead, you will write a descriptive story about your experiences of interviewing the subject and provide the reader with some personal insights as you went about the process. Thus, you might describe how you were feeling going into the interview, the mannerisms and reactions from the interviewee as they answered your questions, and what you ultimately learned based on the experience of interviewing that individual. As with typical essays you will want to include an introduction that catches the readers attention, a well-structured body consisting of between 3 and 5 paragraphs, and a conclusion that leaves the reader with a lasting impression. Leadership Essay If you have been assigned a leadership essay, your best bet is to look for somebody in the community who has proven track record. For instance, you could contact your Congressperson or a local business leader and ask if they have some time to sit down for an interview. Keep in mind that they often have a very tight schedule, so if they agree to be interviewed, be ready for them to cancel or postpone. You might also consider having a backup plan if they ultimately do not find time. While face-to-face is probably the most effective way to interview, be willing to chat on Skype or by phone. We do not recommend chatting through instant messenger as the tone could be misunderstood and it could lack nuance. Here are three possible topics that you can focus on as you conduct the interview: Ask them to define what leadership means to them Compare and contrast Social leadership vs. Business leadership Tests created to identify the level of personal leadership Career Interview Essay A career interview essay is a good way to gain insights into how successful people get hired. You could go about this from two different angles. You could interview somebody and ask them how they managed to land a particular job. In particular, you could ask what aspects of their life and career left the best impression. You could also interview a human resource manager to determine what qualities and characteristics they are looking for when they interview candidates. They might also share some of the dos and donts when interviewing for a job. Personal Interview The personal interview essay is the one for which the question-and-answer format is most appropriate. Rather than telling a story that incorporates your own insights, you are getting to the meat of the matter by asking the interviewee to discuss important events in their lives that shaped them. Childhood background information Insights on their formative teenage years College period Career experience Marriage and Family Life after retirement (if you are interviewing an older individual) You would still want to provide a bit of background about the individual before discussing the content of the interview. For instance, you should discuss why they are noteworthy and why they were chosen to be the subject of your interview. If you need a helping hand with your interview essay assignment, you can trust the professional experts at. For a reasonable price, we can put you in touch with an expert interviewer who can ask the thoughtful, penetrating questions that lead to a productive interview paper. You can read this excellent interview essay as example: Leave Your Troubles Behind and Entrust! Qualified writing experts. We have professional writers who are experts in virtually every field and know how to develop perfect interview questions. Unique academic papers. Your papers will be written based on your exact instructions and will never be plagiarized. Complete confidentiality.Your secret will always be safe with us. Neither your professor nor your university will ever know that you ordered custom papers using our services. Money back guarantee. You have nothing to lose. If your paper fails to follow your directions, you will not pay a dime.

Aristotle slavery

Aristotle believes that some people are by nature slaves. What Is his argument for that claim? Do you agree with Aristotle that a slave-holding society can be democratic? According to Aristotle, a slave is the property of its master, and that any piece of property can be regarded as a tool enabling a man to live. The slave, therefore, is a living tool of the master, whose purpose is to allow the master to live well. A slave belongs to a master, but a master doesnt belong to a slave. The rule of a master over a slave, then, is exercised with a view to the masters and the slaves goals or nterests. He represents slaves as a tool in his definition of slavery. Aristotle continues his definition of slave by explaining that those people who are slaves are naturally born as slaves and they are naturally the property of some one else. Those who are as different [from other men] as the soul from the body or man from beast and they are in this state if their work is the use of the body, and if this is the best that can come from them are slaves by nature. For he is a slave by nature who is capable of belonging to another which is also why he belongs to another nd who participates in reason only to the extent of perceiving it, but does not have it. Slaves are tools but they are alive and they belong to their masters. But when he widens his explanations about slavery, he states that all slavery instituted by human convention Is not compatible with Justice by saying the distinction between slave and free Is one of convention only, and In nature there Is no difference, so that this form of rule Is based on force and Is therefore not Just. Therefore, If someone Is not naturally born as a slave, it is unjust to refer him as a slave in his opinion. This critic of Aristotle means that if the slavery is built up my laws or is enforced by some particular communities; these are unjust because they are unnatural and they have no equivalency in nature. In his arguments, the people the laws treat as slaves and those they treat as free which coul d Justify the legal difference are indistinguishable. So, when Aristotle claims are scrutinized it is obvious to see that in some points Aristotle seems as accepting that some in fact, some legal methods which make people slaves are unjust. But he defends some dfferences between people and these differences make slavery Just. If legal slavery represents these Inherent differences It Is Just, but If It Is contrary to his then It Is totally unjust. Aristotle also states In Polltlcs that: the one strong for servile labor, the other upright, and although useless for such services, useful for political life in the arts both of war and peace. But the opposite often happensthat some have the souls and others have the bodies of freemen. And doubtless if men differed from one another in the mere forms of their bodies as uch as the statues of the Gods do from men, all would acknowledge that the inferior class should be slaves of the superior. It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right. and this claim takes us to the point that distinguishing the differences among people. Also, there are some natural differences between people and these differences can Justify slavery or being someones living tool. Human beings are divided into groups according to different categorizations. The first partnerships among human eings would have been between persons who cannot exist without one another. There are two groups of people in this case; male and female for the sake of reproduction. and he continuous this discrimination by explaining the second partnership:the naturally ruling and ruled, on account of preservation. First, the ones who have less knowledge and who have more knowledge to manage with life. First group cannot properly exercise the practical virtues on their own and they have less chance to achieve the happiness. So, to treat someone as a living tool as Aristotle did, is not a complication to achieve the happiness. Furthermore, it is better to do so in order to give him the best possible use of that entity for the happiness. Where then there is such a difference as that between soul and body, or between men and animals, the lower sort are by nature slaves, and it is better for them as for all inferiors that they should be under the rule of a master. For he who can be, and therefore is, anothers and he who participates in rational principle enough to apprehend, but not to have, such a principle, is a slave by nature. By looking all these things Aristotle indicates about slavery, still it is not valid to defense the existence of slavery no matter what. Because in Aristotle arguments he defends that to be a natural slave is better for a slave, but to decide such an important in a human beings life is not possible, therefore not valid or ethic. Because it is unknown that if someone really unable to sustain his life and achieve the happiness especially for a short time of period. People may give their whole life to achieve the happiness and they can reach this aim maybe at the end of their lives, nd die as a happy human being without being treated as a slave by someone elses orders. Aristotle claims that natural slaves are people Whose condition is such that their function is the use of their bodies and nothing better can be expected of them. But by saying that he does not exactly mean not able to think or understand. Because if it was so that would be impossible for masters to expect all those things that slaves virtue is. But they are not the only one who are incapable to understand it, it is the majority of the society. Thus, if that would be an acceptable argument that, it would be necessary to agree that most people are incapable of true virtue and therefore they are all slaves which is impossible and completely absurd . Also another issue can be changed in a contrary way to what Aristotle claims. He distinguishes people as slaves and non-slaves, or the ruled ones and the rulers. But this grouping method can be collected in one group by using some techniques such as education. Even assuming that to be natural slave is natural and Just;it is quite logical to give a ualified education to group which includes the slaves and elevate them to the identical level as the rulers are. It is much beneficial to look for solutions rather than just categorizing people and treat them by some criteria without even questioning their rationality. Although the basic claims Aristotle makes, he is unable to explain not explain why some people are both weak and also have lack of knowledge and why some people are both strong and capable of knowledge. His arguments are also weak about why the children of natural slaves appears like natural rulers and how someone can ecome a slave even that not being captured in a war r how one can become a slave while he or she is the child of a natural master. When it is looked from different perspectives and from the society that we live in, all these reasons given above makes us to stand Just opposite to Aristotles thoughts and believing that it is unjust to enslave someone no matter what. Nobody is capable enough to decide whether someone has enough knowledge or not; or unable to sustain their lives and achieve the happiness, therefore it does not make any sense to try clarify the slavery is Just in todays conditions.

Personal statement of UC application Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Of UC application - Personal Statement Example Although I still consider myself a young person, I have been fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to spend an entire summer interning for my father’s real estate firm in mainland China; performing the job responsibilities of an accountant. While in China, I was able to learn the rudimentary elements of basic business accounting while at the same time becoming accustomed to the Chinese laws that governed its implementation. There is no doubt that I have a great deal of further knowledge to be gained in this field by pursuing a major in accounting; furthermore, I am intrigued by the ways in which the lessons I learn from my education will be amenable to better performing accounting with relation to Chinese firms or American firms. Likewise, what intrigued me about this particular line of work was the precision that it involved. As opposed to many career choices I could make, accounting provides me with the rare opportunity to leverage my superior skills and intuition with mathematics alongside my interest in the law and how it governs financial regulation and actions within a firm or organization. Additionally, while working during my internship I noticed that I had the unique ability to concentrate and focus in a way that allowed me to handle complex levels of information. Additionally, once back within the United States, I began to work in my father’s Tea Shop managing the accounts and keeping the books for the business. Although this is the epitome of a small business and not nearly as complex as the skills that I will learn with relation to the degree I am pursuing, this experience has also taught me the overall importance of precision and certainty when dealing with the financial aspects of management as they relate to accounting. Although I have been fortunate to have a father that has entrusted me with such important tasks, I would very much like to grow beyond this and master the skills

What is ethnicity Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

What is ethnicity - Essay Example Certainly, they often co-exist and it is hardly uncommon that the latter be invoked by the former but, both contemporary and historical events evidence the fact that nationalism can be independent from the nation.2 Not only may feelings of nationalism precede the geo-political realization of the nation, as in the case of Palestine or Kurdistan but it often survives the demise of the nation, as in the case of Armenia, to name but one example. While some scholars have disputed the separation between nationalism and the nation, others have maintained it to be an undeniable reality which is influenced by the ethnic roots of nationalism. Pending the presentation of definitions for both the nation and nationalism, through reference to several examples, this essay will show that nationalism is more ethnic-based than it is nation-based. Some political scientists maintain that nationalism and the nation are inseparable contrasts, wherein the one cannot exist without the other. This is precisely the argument forwarded by Seymour (1999), a political scholar. As he argues, defining the concept of nationalism without first defining that of the nation is nothing other than a futile and impossible undertaking. The nation must first be defined and to this end, Seymour proposes the following definition: "a sovereign state founded upon the will of the people," and an area which a people of specific ethnic origin claims to be theirs and are prepared to defend this claim against any aggression.3 The nation, in other words, is defined in specific geopolitical terms and refers to a well-defined geographic space. That space invokes nationalism, or feelings of pride, often even defensiveness when real or imagined threats are perceived. When invoked by real or imagined threats, whether internal, as in emanating from within that spac e, or external, as in emerging from without it, nationalism tends to assume an ethnic undertone. In such instance, the nationalism becomes ethno-nationalism, leading to the redefinition of the nation in ethnic terms.4 The implication here is that not only are the concepts of the nation and nationalism inextricably linked but that the invocation of nationalist sentiments, of nationalism, is dependant upon the existence of the nation. Should one reflect upon Seymour's definition and argument, however, one will find that it is somewhat self-contradictory. On the one hand, it maintains that nationalism can only be invoked by the nation, following which it proceeds to define the nation as a concrete geopolitical entity. On the other hand, however, it argues that when the nation, that concrete geopolitical entity, is exposed to threat, not only does nationalism become ethno-nationalism but that the nation itself is redefined along ethnic lines. The implication here is that the core of nationalism is not the nation but is ethnicity which, at the same time, is the center-force of the nation. This is precisely the argument forwarded by May, Modood and Squires (2005). As may be inferred from their argument, nations are formed by ethnic communities and are founded upon ethnicity, wherein nationalism becomes the celebration of a particular ethnic or religious group and the nation the space which protects and sustains this g roup. 5 Israel is a case in point. As Yiftachel (2006) points out, Jewish nationalism, sometimes referred to as Zionism, preceded formation of the Jewish nation and, indeed, the nation was predicated upon pre-existing nationalism6 and not, as Seymour (1999) argues,

Trifles by Susan Glaspell Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words - 1

Trifles by Susan Glaspell - Essay Example Trifles, I believe, is feminist in the most true sense of that word: it does not seek to speak only about injustice or the place of women in a society which undervalues their importance; it goes deeper than this. Glaspell seeks to understand and, consequently, show how attitudes and perspectives shape these social constructs, and thus, when individuals are appreciated or cheapened in particular societal contexts. To elaborate on this point, consider the lines when the women decide to protect Mrs. Wright. Glaspell wants to focus upon the minds of the individuals involved; although some would like to interpret the women’s actions (to protect Mrs. Wright) as motivated by a shared gender or social status, the truth of their decision lies in what Mrs. Peters succinctly summarized by â€Å"the law is law†. That is, her motivation for helping Mrs. Wright does not consist of purely traditional feminist notions of womanhood, but of a concern for truth and objectivity. The women find evidence at Mrs. Wright’s home, gathered with an open-mind and interpreted fairly. When law enforcement—the Sherriff and the County Attorney—interpret this same evidence, they will do so differently. This, as Glaspell wishes to suggest, is a matter of epistemological difference, and not of the metaphysical difference which many feminists like to suppose exists between the different realm s of male and female. Centrally, Trifles is a work centered around the two separate stories, one male and one female, combined into one in the setting of a commonplace American location. To illustrate the separate perspectives between the different genders involved in the place, following the murder, the law enforcement, male-oriented crowd sees the scene as a place where a grievous crime was committed, whereas the female-oriented crowd sees the scene as a home, or as somewhere that they

Effects of Manipulating Individual Identity

Effects of Manipulating Individual Identity Abstract: This study examined how changing the perception of social distance changed the way in which subjects interacted in the Trust Game specifically looking into the social preferences they displayed. A discussion of both economic and sociological research demonstrates the inherent variability of social identity and social distance and the interconnected nature these concepts have with social preferences. A two-stage experiment involving subjects of different nationalities and genders was carried out with a different identity focus in each stage. Findings show that subjects exhibit greater social preferences when interacting with those of a similar focused identity yet the degrees of these preferences displayed vary in accordance to the identity focus. Results suggest that social distance, although easily manipulated, is a powerful force in interactions. The results are consistent with previous studies into group membership, identity, nationality, gender and social preferences. Given this studys far-reaching implications it should be viewed as the premise for future study of this topic. Introduction The concept of social distance as elucidated by Akerlof (1997) is profoundly linked with social identity and social preferences. It is the differences in individuals social identities, including for example, race, gender, class and status, that determine the benefits of interaction and to what extent of social preferences are displayed. Yet when individuals are not entirely familiar with each other, the perception of social identities is based on very few observations and is therefore not entirely accurate. The purpose of this dissertation is to examine whether or not variations in the perception of social identity, and thus social distance, will affect the extent to which social preferences are manifested. Studies on the effect of identity are in no way new. Akerlof and Kranton (2000) studied its relevance and magnitude with regards to gender discrimination in the workplace, poverty and social exclusion, and the household division of labour. Akerlof (1997) also studied the effect of social distance, asserting that the social identity of individuals can substantially affect their interactions. What has not been tested, however, is to what extent identity is merely a perception. Individuals can and do possess multiple identities varying in dominance from situation to situation. The hypothesis of this paper is that social preferences are relevant in experimental games, but these are dependent on how each player perceives the others social identity, a perception that is inherently variable. Players react with varying degrees of self-interest according to the identity they perceive, even when identical character profiles are involved. Recent economic studies fail to sufficiently incorporate current sociological thinking as to the nature of social identity and although this study will give evidence for the relevance of social distance in determining degrees of social preferences, it will attempt to shed light on individuals inconsistent perception of the distance between them. In order to add weight to this position, an experiment was organised in which participants of various profiles were invited to play the Trust Game. Each game was played face-to-face with no verbal communication. The experiment was divided into two stages, a nationality focused stage and a gender focused stage. Each participant played the game twice and never with the same opposing player. Before each game, participants were assigned to certain rooms in which video clips were played depending on the identity focused on. In the first stage, participants were split into three rooms, one for each nationality present: Scottish, English and Chinese. After one play of the Trust Game, the experiment commenced its second stage and participants were split into two rooms, one for each gender, and again asked to play the game. The results show that there is significant variation in the degrees of social preferences displayed depending on the identity being focused on hereafter referred to as the focused identity. When nationality was the focused identity, those with this common identity exhibited greater social preferences than those of differing nationalities, regardless of gender. When gender was the focused identity, those with this common identity exhibited greater social preferences than those of differing gender, regardless, to some extent, of nationality. This lack of consistency shows that the perception of social distance is not a constant through both stages and yet it is still proves to be a determining factor in how players interact. The following content of this paper is arranged into four sections. Section 2 will address the relevant literature with regards to social preferences and identity, showing their relevance, interconnected nature and inherent variability, discussing the application of various theories in the context of this study. Section 3 will describe the design and implementation of the experiment used in this study with the results, analysis and comparisons to similar studies presented in Section 4. An interpretation of these results and further conclusions will be offered in Section 5. Theories of Preferences and Identity To clearly understand the argument presented, a holistic discussion of current theories must be embarked upon. The relevance of social preferences and the forms of their analysis through experimental games will be examined in this section to create the context in which this study is placed. The concepts of identity and how they shape perceptions and interactions will then be considered before discussing their relationship with social preferences. Social Preferences The assumption that man is motivated by self-interest is one that has dominated economic theory and is indeed fundamental to the very ideology of the vast majority of economists. As Adam Smith (1910:13) suggests, It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Inherent in this analogy is the implication that self-interest is the primary motivator in our economic interactions, and it is through this impulse that equilibria are formed. In Game Theory, the Nash Equilibrium is obtained by each player assuming the other possesses purely selfish motives. This assumption, however, is not always consistent with reality. Many factors influence an individuals decisions and it is evident that the maximisation of material gain is not always a dominating motivation. Some of the factors influencing an individuals decisions can relate to social status, group membership, inequity aversion, reciprocity, s pite, envy, altruism and identity. These factors form a preference set, referred to in this study as social preferences. Although the theory of self-interest has been ingrained in traditional economics, modern economists have increasingly questioned this supposition. In fact the traditional authors of this theory were also wary of its realism. Even though Edgeworth (1881:16) writes that the first principle of Economics is that every agent is actuated only by self-interest, he concedes that Man is, in reality, for the most part an impure egoist, a mixed utilitarian, (Edgeworth 1881:104). It is evident that we are influenced by unselfish motives in our interactions with others and it follows that these interactions will in many circumstances involve material profit and loss. This is the realm of social preferences. Amartya Sen (1977:336), in his seminal paper on the irrationality of traditional preference theory states that the purely economic man is indeed close to being a social moron. He argues that theories that do not encompass the influence of sympathy and our commitment to it are incomplete. It is the result of this basic emotion that our social norms, laws and codes of conduct are formed and without which no society would be feasible (Johansen 1977). In various studies into social preferences, it is seen that they are comprised of multiple aspects. Reciprocity, inequity aversion, altruism and trust are all basic components of this preference set (Andreoni et al. 2002). When kindness or animosity is shown, the impulse exists to reciprocate in like manner. When inequity exists, the urge exists to rebel against it. Altruism is the virtue that depends on no form of expected gain or reciprocity, the purest form of good will. Trust is the confidence in the future actions of another and is arguably the most variable of the social preferences and one that will be revisited in this study. Each of these attributes are far from abstract philosophical concepts, exert great influence on our economic interactions. Agell and Lundberg (1995) discovered that as a result of workers being influenced by fairness and equity customs, wage cuts were often unprofitable, with workers objecting to an unfair action. This can have a direct impact on the extent that a company vertically integrates, with out-sourcing often being far more viable given the reciprocal attitude of workers. Bewley (1999) also noted that a firms policy can affect worker morale and as such companies must take into account the perceived fairness of their policies. The extent of tax evasion has also been correlated to how fair it is perceived, and in fact the entire structure of tax systems are thoroughly debated and altered according to the principles of equity and merit (Seidl and Traub 2002). The perception of unreciprocated generosity has been one of the causes of the general reduction in support from the US w elfare state. People are disinclined to support welfare structures that give the impression that they are helping a poor segment of society that refuse to help themselves, content to live off the goodwill of others (Bowles and Gintis 2000). Fukuyama (1995) also correlates economic prosperity with higher levels of trust, suggesting that social preferences are a very powerful force even in the current global economic system. Sequential games Although the examples given are wide-ranging in scope, involving relatively large economic issues, social preferences have also been proven to have a significant effect on individual interactions. Previously experimental games have been used to prove the dominating forces of self-interest, the equilibria of these experiments being calculated by assuming that all agents were exclusively self-interested (Fehr and Schmict, 2001). Recently, economists have carried out several experiments involving non-cooperative games that contradict this presumption. Guth, Schmittberger and Schwarze (1982) were among the first to create a game that did just this. It is called the Ultimatum Game. There are two players in the game, one a Proposer and one a Responder. The Proposer must divide an amount of money X between the two players, offering the Responder any amount Y = X. If Responder accepts, the Proposer receives the remaining money X – Y, if they reject, both receive nothing. Under self-interested preferences, the efficient equilibrium is the one in which the Proposer gives the least amount possible to the Responder, who will accept any amount. In reality however, offers of less than a fifth of X are rejected about half time and Proposers anticipating this generally offer around 30 to 50 percent of X (Hoffman et al. 1996). This result clearly shows that factors other than self-interest are at play. It would be reasonable to assume that altruism and reciprocity both play a part in the decision-making process of both players. The Proposer may be influenced by a code of morals and a concept of fairness to offer more than the standard equilibrium distribution. The P roposer must also take into account the Responders sense of reciprocity and animosity towards a seemingly unfair distribution. Although the Responder is under no monetary incentive to reject a low offer, yet his social preferences mean that he is able to achieve some utility by spiting the Proposer, thereby valuing a certain amount of reciprocity over monetary value. Given the fact that the Proposers actions may be driven only by the fear of reciprocity and no sense of altruism, it is worthwhile to look into the Dictators Game first introduced by Kahneman et al. (1986) and refined by Forsythe et al. (1994). In this game, the Responder, now called the Recipient, is not given the option to accept or refuse the amount given by the Proposer. If the Proposer is motivated by self-interested alone, they will offer nothing to the Recipient but as many experiments have shown, this is not always the case. Henrich et al. (2001) find that in most dictator game experiments there is a primary mode offer of zero percent of the Proposers total wealth and a secondary mode offer of 50 percent. Some groups show a primary mode offer of 20 percent and a secondary mode of 50 percent providing strong evidence of inequity aversion. In addition to supporting the notion that man is not exclusively self-interested, studies also confirm that fear of reciprocity is present i n the Ultimatum Game and that Proposers apply backwards induction with average offers being lower in the Dictator Game (Roth et al. 1991). The Trust Game, developed by Berg et al. (1995) is a game that can be used to test the presence of altruism, inequity aversion, reciprocity and its namesake, trust. The game is played with an Investor and a Trustee, with the former being given an initial endowment of X and the latter given nothing. The Investor is then able to give any amount Y between 0 and X. The amount the Trustee receives will be tripled, amounting to 3Y. The Trustee is then given the option to give any amount Z between 0 and 3Y back to the Investor thereby making the payoffs of the Investor and the Trustee X – Y + Z and 3Y – Z respectively. The Trustee is under no monetary incentive to return any amount and as such, under strictly self-interested preferences the Investor will predict this and give the Trustee nothing but, as with the Ultimatum and Dictator Games, studies show that many players of the Trust Game deviate from this equilibrium. Berg et al. (1995) find that almost all Investors give so me amount of money to the Trustee and that a substantial number of Trustees return at least the same amount and that a third even returned more than they received. The amount returned also increases with the amount given thus supporting the theory that reciprocity is an integral part of many preference sets. Investors and Trustees are able to display inequity aversion by choosing to give or return amounts that will equalise final payoffs. Trustees can also display altruism by returning anything over and above the amount needed to equalise payoffs. It is interesting to note that there is substantial variation in the amounts given, with no clear average amount entrusted. The variation is not unsurprising, however, given the inherent inconsistency in levels of trust that individuals demonstrate in their interactions with various individuals. In society, trust placed in an individual is dependent on who that individual is or, in other terms, trust placed is dependent on the perceived id entity of the individual in question. Identity Identity, at its most fundamental level, is at the base of all human interaction. For an individual to interact with another, the individual must have a clear concept of both himself and of the other. It is in the consideration of these two concepts that decisions are made. Descartes (1912:167) famously stated †¦I think, therefore I am, and in doing so sparked off the philosophical debate on what truly directs our thoughts and actions. Hume (1888) further develops this by exploring our perception of ourselves, our identity. It was his belief that we can only perceive ourselves, and build our identity, by categorisation in the light of selected characteristics and never perceive our true reality in objective terms. It is out-with the bounds of this study to discuss in depth the sociological and psychological complexities of this topic, yet it is worth-while bringing to light some key concepts to further the understanding of the interactions between this studys participants. An identity is a tool of recognition. It allows us to recognise individuals, categories, groups and types of individuals, Wiley (1994:130). More than this, it is also a tool of categorisation and emotional cues. It implies a conscious awareness by members of a group, some positive or negative emotional feelings towards the characteristics which members of a group perceive themselves as sharing and in which they perceive themselves as differing from others, Mennell (1994:177). Goffman (1968) further expounds these aspects of recognition by dividing identity into three sections: the personal identity, the ego identity and the social identity. The personal identity is the unique identification that each individual possesses to differentiate themselves technically, legally and realistically from all others. The ego identity is a purely subjective observation that is built from a multitude of social experiences and is a sense of ones own particular state and nature. The social identity pr ovides a way of categorising people and connects each person with a set of attributes and characteristics thought to be in keeping with the members of their respective categories. Individuals that possess commonalities in the form of thought, action, nature, experience or lifestyle can all be grouped into various social identities. Examples of social identities are nationality, gender, music-taste, age, profession and political views. It is important to stress that while individuals may only hold one personal and ego identity, they are able to juggle multiple social identities which have varying degrees of focus from situation to situation. Akerlof and Kranton (2000) put forward the theorem that our perception of our ego identity can have a significant influence on our decisions and actions. Their theorem sheds light on a number of seemingly irrational choices. Actions that are of apparent detriment to an individual can be viewed as a form of behaviour that it used to create a more unique self identity. Similarly, steps may be taken to symbolise the assumption of a particular identity or the membership of a certain group, be they conscious or otherwise. Men do not generally wear dresses, and as such this behavioural code is unconsciously subscribed to by the majority of men. Any behaviour to the contrary poses a challenge not merely to the social norm, but to the identity of manhood itself. Attempts to manipulate an individuals decisions can be based on the notion of identity. In order to influence people to buy their products, companies create advertisements that often show a stylised form of a particular identity that people may aspire to. Finally, as identity can play such a large role in determining our economic decisions and behaviour, and assuming that individuals can choose their own identity, Akerlof and Kranton (2000) conclude that identity choices can be a major factor in a persons overall economic well-being, a conclusion strengthened by the theory of role-identities. It is difficult to determine to what extent our identity is prescriptive or descriptive in relation to our own actions, but nevertheless the dual concepts of identity and role are deeply interconnected. Lyman and Scott (1970:136) clarify this link by stating that roles are identities mobilised in a specific situation; whereas role is always situationally specific, identities are trans-situational. By assuming an identity, we also assume a role. Despite that the fact that this role varies from situation to situation, it is at all times consistent with the assumed identity. It is from this notion that expectations and metaperspectives are formed. Laing et al. (1966) pioneered the belief that it is not I but you that is important. More specifically they claimed that we are all deeply influenced by considering our view of others view of ourselves and in such a way develop a role-performance that conforms to the expectation others have of our behaviour so as to receive positive feedback o r avoid negative feedback. In order to assess these expectations and act accordingly, we must first judge what these expectations are. With strangers, this is problematic, and as such we orient ourselves toward them in terms only of the ill-specified contours of their social roles, (McCall and Simmons, 1978:70). In this respect, we are only able to form rough estimations of a persons true identity and thereby rely on our perception of how they fit into vague boundaries of social identities. When we perceive people this way, our perception of the attributes they possess as ascribed by their social identity is often completely arbitrary when viewed in the context of an objective character analysis. The perception and reality can at times be poles apart, decreasing in accuracy with increasing social distance. Identities and Social Preferences Akerlof (1997) defined social distance as a measure of social proximity between individuals. The model he created summarises that people gain benefits from interacting to those socially closer to themselves, with these benefits decreasing with isolation. This model is supported by empirical evidence that suggests that trust and reciprocity are linked with social connection and that members of the same nationality and race exhibit greater degrees of these attributes towards one another (Glaeser et al. 1999). A common method of analysing social distance is through the construction of groups in experiments and many studies of this kind have provided quite significant results. Studying the effects of group membership on cooperation, Orbell et al. (1988) find that subjects are far more likely to cooperate with in-group members than out-group members, with 79% of participants showing cooperation with the former and only 30% showing cooperation with the latter. Through using a variation on the dictator game, Frey and Bohnet (1997) also showed how group membership affects social preferences. The experiment observed that in-group members were allocated far more of the total endowment than out-group members suggesting some correlation with membership and altruism and inequity aversion. An important finding of the literature on the topic of group membership is that subjects react to membership in a very subjective manner, disregarding objective considerations. Billing and Tajfel (1973) observe that the even most minimal connections within a group still give rise to in-group positive discrimination. Although subjects realised that the basis of group composition wa s entirely random, they still discriminated toward their fellow members in a very significant way. The fact that the weakest bonds are able to create positive in-group interaction is an important consideration when examining the relation between perceptions of social identity and expressions of social preferences. While group membership is a powerful force, transnational studies have shown that the cooperation inducing group mentality is not a universally consistent attribute. Buchan, Croson and Johnson (1999) find that subjects from the U.S. are more trusting when paired with in-group members but that this is not the case for subjects from China and Japan, who are more trusting in general, regardless of whom they were paired with. Buchan and Croson (1999) also find variations across genders observing that although participants trust men and women equally, women are seen to reciprocate more than men in Trust Games and are more generous in Dictator Games, findings that are consistent internationally. Another consistency that was found across nationalities in this study was the effect that communication between players had on trust and reciprocation levels, a conclusion also mirrored in other experiments. Roth (1995) found that even simple, seemingly irrelevant conversations significantly increa sed the levels of these social preferences. Regardless of variations across nationality, gender and communication levels, it is apparent that there is a clear connection between identity and social preferences. As we categorise individuals into social categories, we not only presume they possess certain qualities and attributes but we also predict how they react. In the same way we use metaperspectives to shape our own actions based on vague notions of the social identities of others, we also use these imperfect images to form inherently imperfect expectations of future interactions. The perception and reality can at times be irreconcilable and yet any initial interaction uses this as its basis. McCall and Simmons (1978) put forward the idea that any interaction that takes place is solely based on images that are constructed in the minds of those interacting. Taking into account the inaccuracy of these constructs when strangers interact, we can see how this translates into the laymans term of prejudice, a concept closely linke d with trust. The concept of trust, as mentioned earlier is based on confidence and at the heart of confidence is a deep reliance on predictions and expectations which are in turn based on the rough identities that we perceive others to possess. This results in great variance in trust levels which, although proven in studies referred to above, is readily seen in everyday life. Trust can be unquestioned with interactions with family members and friends but displayed with lesser and lesser extents to strangers and those who we perceive as untrustworthy. Just as signalling is used in the employment markets, so it is in our trust-dependant interactions. One may ask a well-dressed, polite and friendly stranger to watch over some personal belongings in a library but may be loath to leave anything unattended when in the presence of hooded youth. The hood can be seen as a signal that the wearer is dangerous and cannot be trusted. It is perceived as the expression of an identity, the perception of which ca n influence our attitudes and behaviour. The studies above also show that identity can greatly affect reciprocity, inequity aversion and altruism. Experiments based around group membership, however minimal, show the great influence groups have on these social preferences. One explanation of this is the concept of metaperspectives, in that individuals are more generous in experimental games because they believe that their counterpart expects them to be. Akerlofs (1997:1008) model of social distance also sheds some light on this by theorising that individuals benefit from lesser amounts of social distance between them and thus have the incentive to conform to expectations, what he labels The Conformist Model. A reduction of social distance between players can also be achieved by perceived acts of kindness and so experimental game players may be willing to sacrifice monetary gains so as to achieve social gains with another player. This incentive however, is again based on social distance and those players who feel socially far apart may feel no need to become socially closer, a feeling that is ultimately merely based on their perception of the current social distance and social identities. Two significant ways in which individuals identify themselves and others is by their nationality and gender. At the outset of mankinds evolution, gender has been a universal divider of the human race, preceding all other identities. Rooted in our biology, gender is the simplest form of classification, but its implications are far more wide-reaching than simple physiology. To the opposite sex, gender implies certain generalised roles, attitudes, commitments, experiences and lifestyles. The source of such clear social stereotypes is only in part biological and many academics are of the belief that behavioural and psychological differences are created and perpetuated by unbalanced power and privilege structures in society (Flax 1990). The amplification of social distance is caused by the notion that qualities are gender specific, with masculinity and femininity being attributes in themselves, and the fact that men and women are commonly associated with their relative positions in both f amily life and work life. Lockheed (1985) supposes that women are conceived as compliant followers and men dominant leaders only because of the common minority and majority balance that is common in social and work situations. The large disparity between the social identity and actual realities of members of the opposite sex provides a good opportunity to explore to what extent interaction is based on unqualified perceptions and to map the effect of variations in this perception. Unlike gender identities, nationalism is a relatively new force in the world (Smith 1995). It can be seen as a group identity that has transcended some cultures, as seen in the ethnically diverse nations such as India and Russia, but divided others as seen in the cases of North and South Korea and the Taiwanese and Chinese separation and is manifested in positive discrimination towards fellow nationals and negative discrimination towards foreigners (Macesich, 1985). Breton (1964:378) notes that governments utilise nationalistic instruments†¦ for the purpose of increasing the share of assets in a given assets in a given territory owned by the nationals of that territory. Breton (1964) also observes that nationalistic redistribution of investment and capital results in a lower rate of return than would be realised if resources were allocated efficiently, an observation that draws parallels with the nature of social preferences on a much larger scale. The practice of promoting thes e nationalistic policies that are not beneficial to certain population segments is centred on the formation of a nation-wide group identity that promotes solidarity in the same way that smaller scale groups do. The membership of these nation-groups is defined according to several commonalities. Members share an economy, a historic territory, myths and memories, a public culture, and a set of legal rights (Smith 1991). What is clear from this definition is the lack of consistent personal characteristics, illustrating that members of a nation-group vary considerably in their social and personal identities. The minimal nature of the nation-group is accepted by many academics, some seeing nationalism as an ironic tool that encourages members to appreciate things that are national for the mere fact that it is national (Breton 1964). Karl Deutsch (1969:3) aptly described a nation as a group of people united by a common error about their ancestry and a common dislike of their neighbours, evoking the notion that national identity is a predominately social construct inaccurately perceived to be connected to common characteristics, descent and preferences. (Smith 1996) stresses that the perception of ones own nationality and that of others is inherently only emotional, implying a subjective disregard for objective considerations that results in large social distances between foreigners and nationals, and smaller social distances between nationals. However erroneous, the very substantial influence nationality exerts can be seen through the stereotypical actions of distrusting of foreigners and supporting fellow country-men, making nationality another excellent candidate identity to examine how variations in perceived identity cause variations in the social preferences displayed. Experimental Design and Implementation It is social identity and its inherently variable quality that is at the heart of this study. It is this studys aim to discover in what way the perception of this identity can affect the extent that social preferences are displayed and whether or not a shift of focus from one form of social identity to another will cause a change in degree of social preferences manifested. Given its ability to expose these preferences, an extension of the Trust Game is used Effects of Manipulating Individual Identity Effects of Manipulating Individual Identity Abstract: This study examined how changing the perception of social distance changed the way in which subjects interacted in the Trust Game specifically looking into the social preferences they displayed. A discussion of both economic and sociological research demonstrates the inherent variability of social identity and social distance and the interconnected nature these concepts have with social preferences. A two-stage experiment involving subjects of different nationalities and genders was carried out with a different identity focus in each stage. Findings show that subjects exhibit greater social preferences when interacting with those of a similar focused identity yet the degrees of these preferences displayed vary in accordance to the identity focus. Results suggest that social distance, although easily manipulated, is a powerful force in interactions. The results are consistent with previous studies into group membership, identity, nationality, gender and social preferences. Given this studys far-reaching implications it should be viewed as the premise for future study of this topic. Introduction The concept of social distance as elucidated by Akerlof (1997) is profoundly linked with social identity and social preferences. It is the differences in individuals social identities, including for example, race, gender, class and status, that determine the benefits of interaction and to what extent of social preferences are displayed. Yet when individuals are not entirely familiar with each other, the perception of social identities is based on very few observations and is therefore not entirely accurate. The purpose of this dissertation is to examine whether or not variations in the perception of social identity, and thus social distance, will affect the extent to which social preferences are manifested. Studies on the effect of identity are in no way new. Akerlof and Kranton (2000) studied its relevance and magnitude with regards to gender discrimination in the workplace, poverty and social exclusion, and the household division of labour. Akerlof (1997) also studied the effect of social distance, asserting that the social identity of individuals can substantially affect their interactions. What has not been tested, however, is to what extent identity is merely a perception. Individuals can and do possess multiple identities varying in dominance from situation to situation. The hypothesis of this paper is that social preferences are relevant in experimental games, but these are dependent on how each player perceives the others social identity, a perception that is inherently variable. Players react with varying degrees of self-interest according to the identity they perceive, even when identical character profiles are involved. Recent economic studies fail to sufficiently incorporate current sociological thinking as to the nature of social identity and although this study will give evidence for the relevance of social distance in determining degrees of social preferences, it will attempt to shed light on individuals inconsistent perception of the distance between them. In order to add weight to this position, an experiment was organised in which participants of various profiles were invited to play the Trust Game. Each game was played face-to-face with no verbal communication. The experiment was divided into two stages, a nationality focused stage and a gender focused stage. Each participant played the game twice and never with the same opposing player. Before each game, participants were assigned to certain rooms in which video clips were played depending on the identity focused on. In the first stage, participants were split into three rooms, one for each nationality present: Scottish, English and Chinese. After one play of the Trust Game, the experiment commenced its second stage and participants were split into two rooms, one for each gender, and again asked to play the game. The results show that there is significant variation in the degrees of social preferences displayed depending on the identity being focused on hereafter referred to as the focused identity. When nationality was the focused identity, those with this common identity exhibited greater social preferences than those of differing nationalities, regardless of gender. When gender was the focused identity, those with this common identity exhibited greater social preferences than those of differing gender, regardless, to some extent, of nationality. This lack of consistency shows that the perception of social distance is not a constant through both stages and yet it is still proves to be a determining factor in how players interact. The following content of this paper is arranged into four sections. Section 2 will address the relevant literature with regards to social preferences and identity, showing their relevance, interconnected nature and inherent variability, discussing the application of various theories in the context of this study. Section 3 will describe the design and implementation of the experiment used in this study with the results, analysis and comparisons to similar studies presented in Section 4. An interpretation of these results and further conclusions will be offered in Section 5. Theories of Preferences and Identity To clearly understand the argument presented, a holistic discussion of current theories must be embarked upon. The relevance of social preferences and the forms of their analysis through experimental games will be examined in this section to create the context in which this study is placed. The concepts of identity and how they shape perceptions and interactions will then be considered before discussing their relationship with social preferences. Social Preferences The assumption that man is motivated by self-interest is one that has dominated economic theory and is indeed fundamental to the very ideology of the vast majority of economists. As Adam Smith (1910:13) suggests, It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Inherent in this analogy is the implication that self-interest is the primary motivator in our economic interactions, and it is through this impulse that equilibria are formed. In Game Theory, the Nash Equilibrium is obtained by each player assuming the other possesses purely selfish motives. This assumption, however, is not always consistent with reality. Many factors influence an individuals decisions and it is evident that the maximisation of material gain is not always a dominating motivation. Some of the factors influencing an individuals decisions can relate to social status, group membership, inequity aversion, reciprocity, s pite, envy, altruism and identity. These factors form a preference set, referred to in this study as social preferences. Although the theory of self-interest has been ingrained in traditional economics, modern economists have increasingly questioned this supposition. In fact the traditional authors of this theory were also wary of its realism. Even though Edgeworth (1881:16) writes that the first principle of Economics is that every agent is actuated only by self-interest, he concedes that Man is, in reality, for the most part an impure egoist, a mixed utilitarian, (Edgeworth 1881:104). It is evident that we are influenced by unselfish motives in our interactions with others and it follows that these interactions will in many circumstances involve material profit and loss. This is the realm of social preferences. Amartya Sen (1977:336), in his seminal paper on the irrationality of traditional preference theory states that the purely economic man is indeed close to being a social moron. He argues that theories that do not encompass the influence of sympathy and our commitment to it are incomplete. It is the result of this basic emotion that our social norms, laws and codes of conduct are formed and without which no society would be feasible (Johansen 1977). In various studies into social preferences, it is seen that they are comprised of multiple aspects. Reciprocity, inequity aversion, altruism and trust are all basic components of this preference set (Andreoni et al. 2002). When kindness or animosity is shown, the impulse exists to reciprocate in like manner. When inequity exists, the urge exists to rebel against it. Altruism is the virtue that depends on no form of expected gain or reciprocity, the purest form of good will. Trust is the confidence in the future actions of another and is arguably the most variable of the social preferences and one that will be revisited in this study. Each of these attributes are far from abstract philosophical concepts, exert great influence on our economic interactions. Agell and Lundberg (1995) discovered that as a result of workers being influenced by fairness and equity customs, wage cuts were often unprofitable, with workers objecting to an unfair action. This can have a direct impact on the extent that a company vertically integrates, with out-sourcing often being far more viable given the reciprocal attitude of workers. Bewley (1999) also noted that a firms policy can affect worker morale and as such companies must take into account the perceived fairness of their policies. The extent of tax evasion has also been correlated to how fair it is perceived, and in fact the entire structure of tax systems are thoroughly debated and altered according to the principles of equity and merit (Seidl and Traub 2002). The perception of unreciprocated generosity has been one of the causes of the general reduction in support from the US w elfare state. People are disinclined to support welfare structures that give the impression that they are helping a poor segment of society that refuse to help themselves, content to live off the goodwill of others (Bowles and Gintis 2000). Fukuyama (1995) also correlates economic prosperity with higher levels of trust, suggesting that social preferences are a very powerful force even in the current global economic system. Sequential games Although the examples given are wide-ranging in scope, involving relatively large economic issues, social preferences have also been proven to have a significant effect on individual interactions. Previously experimental games have been used to prove the dominating forces of self-interest, the equilibria of these experiments being calculated by assuming that all agents were exclusively self-interested (Fehr and Schmict, 2001). Recently, economists have carried out several experiments involving non-cooperative games that contradict this presumption. Guth, Schmittberger and Schwarze (1982) were among the first to create a game that did just this. It is called the Ultimatum Game. There are two players in the game, one a Proposer and one a Responder. The Proposer must divide an amount of money X between the two players, offering the Responder any amount Y = X. If Responder accepts, the Proposer receives the remaining money X – Y, if they reject, both receive nothing. Under self-interested preferences, the efficient equilibrium is the one in which the Proposer gives the least amount possible to the Responder, who will accept any amount. In reality however, offers of less than a fifth of X are rejected about half time and Proposers anticipating this generally offer around 30 to 50 percent of X (Hoffman et al. 1996). This result clearly shows that factors other than self-interest are at play. It would be reasonable to assume that altruism and reciprocity both play a part in the decision-making process of both players. The Proposer may be influenced by a code of morals and a concept of fairness to offer more than the standard equilibrium distribution. The P roposer must also take into account the Responders sense of reciprocity and animosity towards a seemingly unfair distribution. Although the Responder is under no monetary incentive to reject a low offer, yet his social preferences mean that he is able to achieve some utility by spiting the Proposer, thereby valuing a certain amount of reciprocity over monetary value. Given the fact that the Proposers actions may be driven only by the fear of reciprocity and no sense of altruism, it is worthwhile to look into the Dictators Game first introduced by Kahneman et al. (1986) and refined by Forsythe et al. (1994). In this game, the Responder, now called the Recipient, is not given the option to accept or refuse the amount given by the Proposer. If the Proposer is motivated by self-interested alone, they will offer nothing to the Recipient but as many experiments have shown, this is not always the case. Henrich et al. (2001) find that in most dictator game experiments there is a primary mode offer of zero percent of the Proposers total wealth and a secondary mode offer of 50 percent. Some groups show a primary mode offer of 20 percent and a secondary mode of 50 percent providing strong evidence of inequity aversion. In addition to supporting the notion that man is not exclusively self-interested, studies also confirm that fear of reciprocity is present i n the Ultimatum Game and that Proposers apply backwards induction with average offers being lower in the Dictator Game (Roth et al. 1991). The Trust Game, developed by Berg et al. (1995) is a game that can be used to test the presence of altruism, inequity aversion, reciprocity and its namesake, trust. The game is played with an Investor and a Trustee, with the former being given an initial endowment of X and the latter given nothing. The Investor is then able to give any amount Y between 0 and X. The amount the Trustee receives will be tripled, amounting to 3Y. The Trustee is then given the option to give any amount Z between 0 and 3Y back to the Investor thereby making the payoffs of the Investor and the Trustee X – Y + Z and 3Y – Z respectively. The Trustee is under no monetary incentive to return any amount and as such, under strictly self-interested preferences the Investor will predict this and give the Trustee nothing but, as with the Ultimatum and Dictator Games, studies show that many players of the Trust Game deviate from this equilibrium. Berg et al. (1995) find that almost all Investors give so me amount of money to the Trustee and that a substantial number of Trustees return at least the same amount and that a third even returned more than they received. The amount returned also increases with the amount given thus supporting the theory that reciprocity is an integral part of many preference sets. Investors and Trustees are able to display inequity aversion by choosing to give or return amounts that will equalise final payoffs. Trustees can also display altruism by returning anything over and above the amount needed to equalise payoffs. It is interesting to note that there is substantial variation in the amounts given, with no clear average amount entrusted. The variation is not unsurprising, however, given the inherent inconsistency in levels of trust that individuals demonstrate in their interactions with various individuals. In society, trust placed in an individual is dependent on who that individual is or, in other terms, trust placed is dependent on the perceived id entity of the individual in question. Identity Identity, at its most fundamental level, is at the base of all human interaction. For an individual to interact with another, the individual must have a clear concept of both himself and of the other. It is in the consideration of these two concepts that decisions are made. Descartes (1912:167) famously stated †¦I think, therefore I am, and in doing so sparked off the philosophical debate on what truly directs our thoughts and actions. Hume (1888) further develops this by exploring our perception of ourselves, our identity. It was his belief that we can only perceive ourselves, and build our identity, by categorisation in the light of selected characteristics and never perceive our true reality in objective terms. It is out-with the bounds of this study to discuss in depth the sociological and psychological complexities of this topic, yet it is worth-while bringing to light some key concepts to further the understanding of the interactions between this studys participants. An identity is a tool of recognition. It allows us to recognise individuals, categories, groups and types of individuals, Wiley (1994:130). More than this, it is also a tool of categorisation and emotional cues. It implies a conscious awareness by members of a group, some positive or negative emotional feelings towards the characteristics which members of a group perceive themselves as sharing and in which they perceive themselves as differing from others, Mennell (1994:177). Goffman (1968) further expounds these aspects of recognition by dividing identity into three sections: the personal identity, the ego identity and the social identity. The personal identity is the unique identification that each individual possesses to differentiate themselves technically, legally and realistically from all others. The ego identity is a purely subjective observation that is built from a multitude of social experiences and is a sense of ones own particular state and nature. The social identity pr ovides a way of categorising people and connects each person with a set of attributes and characteristics thought to be in keeping with the members of their respective categories. Individuals that possess commonalities in the form of thought, action, nature, experience or lifestyle can all be grouped into various social identities. Examples of social identities are nationality, gender, music-taste, age, profession and political views. It is important to stress that while individuals may only hold one personal and ego identity, they are able to juggle multiple social identities which have varying degrees of focus from situation to situation. Akerlof and Kranton (2000) put forward the theorem that our perception of our ego identity can have a significant influence on our decisions and actions. Their theorem sheds light on a number of seemingly irrational choices. Actions that are of apparent detriment to an individual can be viewed as a form of behaviour that it used to create a more unique self identity. Similarly, steps may be taken to symbolise the assumption of a particular identity or the membership of a certain group, be they conscious or otherwise. Men do not generally wear dresses, and as such this behavioural code is unconsciously subscribed to by the majority of men. Any behaviour to the contrary poses a challenge not merely to the social norm, but to the identity of manhood itself. Attempts to manipulate an individuals decisions can be based on the notion of identity. In order to influence people to buy their products, companies create advertisements that often show a stylised form of a particular identity that people may aspire to. Finally, as identity can play such a large role in determining our economic decisions and behaviour, and assuming that individuals can choose their own identity, Akerlof and Kranton (2000) conclude that identity choices can be a major factor in a persons overall economic well-being, a conclusion strengthened by the theory of role-identities. It is difficult to determine to what extent our identity is prescriptive or descriptive in relation to our own actions, but nevertheless the dual concepts of identity and role are deeply interconnected. Lyman and Scott (1970:136) clarify this link by stating that roles are identities mobilised in a specific situation; whereas role is always situationally specific, identities are trans-situational. By assuming an identity, we also assume a role. Despite that the fact that this role varies from situation to situation, it is at all times consistent with the assumed identity. It is from this notion that expectations and metaperspectives are formed. Laing et al. (1966) pioneered the belief that it is not I but you that is important. More specifically they claimed that we are all deeply influenced by considering our view of others view of ourselves and in such a way develop a role-performance that conforms to the expectation others have of our behaviour so as to receive positive feedback o r avoid negative feedback. In order to assess these expectations and act accordingly, we must first judge what these expectations are. With strangers, this is problematic, and as such we orient ourselves toward them in terms only of the ill-specified contours of their social roles, (McCall and Simmons, 1978:70). In this respect, we are only able to form rough estimations of a persons true identity and thereby rely on our perception of how they fit into vague boundaries of social identities. When we perceive people this way, our perception of the attributes they possess as ascribed by their social identity is often completely arbitrary when viewed in the context of an objective character analysis. The perception and reality can at times be poles apart, decreasing in accuracy with increasing social distance. Identities and Social Preferences Akerlof (1997) defined social distance as a measure of social proximity between individuals. The model he created summarises that people gain benefits from interacting to those socially closer to themselves, with these benefits decreasing with isolation. This model is supported by empirical evidence that suggests that trust and reciprocity are linked with social connection and that members of the same nationality and race exhibit greater degrees of these attributes towards one another (Glaeser et al. 1999). A common method of analysing social distance is through the construction of groups in experiments and many studies of this kind have provided quite significant results. Studying the effects of group membership on cooperation, Orbell et al. (1988) find that subjects are far more likely to cooperate with in-group members than out-group members, with 79% of participants showing cooperation with the former and only 30% showing cooperation with the latter. Through using a variation on the dictator game, Frey and Bohnet (1997) also showed how group membership affects social preferences. The experiment observed that in-group members were allocated far more of the total endowment than out-group members suggesting some correlation with membership and altruism and inequity aversion. An important finding of the literature on the topic of group membership is that subjects react to membership in a very subjective manner, disregarding objective considerations. Billing and Tajfel (1973) observe that the even most minimal connections within a group still give rise to in-group positive discrimination. Although subjects realised that the basis of group composition wa s entirely random, they still discriminated toward their fellow members in a very significant way. The fact that the weakest bonds are able to create positive in-group interaction is an important consideration when examining the relation between perceptions of social identity and expressions of social preferences. While group membership is a powerful force, transnational studies have shown that the cooperation inducing group mentality is not a universally consistent attribute. Buchan, Croson and Johnson (1999) find that subjects from the U.S. are more trusting when paired with in-group members but that this is not the case for subjects from China and Japan, who are more trusting in general, regardless of whom they were paired with. Buchan and Croson (1999) also find variations across genders observing that although participants trust men and women equally, women are seen to reciprocate more than men in Trust Games and are more generous in Dictator Games, findings that are consistent internationally. Another consistency that was found across nationalities in this study was the effect that communication between players had on trust and reciprocation levels, a conclusion also mirrored in other experiments. Roth (1995) found that even simple, seemingly irrelevant conversations significantly increa sed the levels of these social preferences. Regardless of variations across nationality, gender and communication levels, it is apparent that there is a clear connection between identity and social preferences. As we categorise individuals into social categories, we not only presume they possess certain qualities and attributes but we also predict how they react. In the same way we use metaperspectives to shape our own actions based on vague notions of the social identities of others, we also use these imperfect images to form inherently imperfect expectations of future interactions. The perception and reality can at times be irreconcilable and yet any initial interaction uses this as its basis. McCall and Simmons (1978) put forward the idea that any interaction that takes place is solely based on images that are constructed in the minds of those interacting. Taking into account the inaccuracy of these constructs when strangers interact, we can see how this translates into the laymans term of prejudice, a concept closely linke d with trust. The concept of trust, as mentioned earlier is based on confidence and at the heart of confidence is a deep reliance on predictions and expectations which are in turn based on the rough identities that we perceive others to possess. This results in great variance in trust levels which, although proven in studies referred to above, is readily seen in everyday life. Trust can be unquestioned with interactions with family members and friends but displayed with lesser and lesser extents to strangers and those who we perceive as untrustworthy. Just as signalling is used in the employment markets, so it is in our trust-dependant interactions. One may ask a well-dressed, polite and friendly stranger to watch over some personal belongings in a library but may be loath to leave anything unattended when in the presence of hooded youth. The hood can be seen as a signal that the wearer is dangerous and cannot be trusted. It is perceived as the expression of an identity, the perception of which ca n influence our attitudes and behaviour. The studies above also show that identity can greatly affect reciprocity, inequity aversion and altruism. Experiments based around group membership, however minimal, show the great influence groups have on these social preferences. One explanation of this is the concept of metaperspectives, in that individuals are more generous in experimental games because they believe that their counterpart expects them to be. Akerlofs (1997:1008) model of social distance also sheds some light on this by theorising that individuals benefit from lesser amounts of social distance between them and thus have the incentive to conform to expectations, what he labels The Conformist Model. A reduction of social distance between players can also be achieved by perceived acts of kindness and so experimental game players may be willing to sacrifice monetary gains so as to achieve social gains with another player. This incentive however, is again based on social distance and those players who feel socially far apart may feel no need to become socially closer, a feeling that is ultimately merely based on their perception of the current social distance and social identities. Two significant ways in which individuals identify themselves and others is by their nationality and gender. At the outset of mankinds evolution, gender has been a universal divider of the human race, preceding all other identities. Rooted in our biology, gender is the simplest form of classification, but its implications are far more wide-reaching than simple physiology. To the opposite sex, gender implies certain generalised roles, attitudes, commitments, experiences and lifestyles. The source of such clear social stereotypes is only in part biological and many academics are of the belief that behavioural and psychological differences are created and perpetuated by unbalanced power and privilege structures in society (Flax 1990). The amplification of social distance is caused by the notion that qualities are gender specific, with masculinity and femininity being attributes in themselves, and the fact that men and women are commonly associated with their relative positions in both f amily life and work life. Lockheed (1985) supposes that women are conceived as compliant followers and men dominant leaders only because of the common minority and majority balance that is common in social and work situations. The large disparity between the social identity and actual realities of members of the opposite sex provides a good opportunity to explore to what extent interaction is based on unqualified perceptions and to map the effect of variations in this perception. Unlike gender identities, nationalism is a relatively new force in the world (Smith 1995). It can be seen as a group identity that has transcended some cultures, as seen in the ethnically diverse nations such as India and Russia, but divided others as seen in the cases of North and South Korea and the Taiwanese and Chinese separation and is manifested in positive discrimination towards fellow nationals and negative discrimination towards foreigners (Macesich, 1985). Breton (1964:378) notes that governments utilise nationalistic instruments†¦ for the purpose of increasing the share of assets in a given assets in a given territory owned by the nationals of that territory. Breton (1964) also observes that nationalistic redistribution of investment and capital results in a lower rate of return than would be realised if resources were allocated efficiently, an observation that draws parallels with the nature of social preferences on a much larger scale. The practice of promoting thes e nationalistic policies that are not beneficial to certain population segments is centred on the formation of a nation-wide group identity that promotes solidarity in the same way that smaller scale groups do. The membership of these nation-groups is defined according to several commonalities. Members share an economy, a historic territory, myths and memories, a public culture, and a set of legal rights (Smith 1991). What is clear from this definition is the lack of consistent personal characteristics, illustrating that members of a nation-group vary considerably in their social and personal identities. The minimal nature of the nation-group is accepted by many academics, some seeing nationalism as an ironic tool that encourages members to appreciate things that are national for the mere fact that it is national (Breton 1964). Karl Deutsch (1969:3) aptly described a nation as a group of people united by a common error about their ancestry and a common dislike of their neighbours, evoking the notion that national identity is a predominately social construct inaccurately perceived to be connected to common characteristics, descent and preferences. (Smith 1996) stresses that the perception of ones own nationality and that of others is inherently only emotional, implying a subjective disregard for objective considerations that results in large social distances between foreigners and nationals, and smaller social distances between nationals. However erroneous, the very substantial influence nationality exerts can be seen through the stereotypical actions of distrusting of foreigners and supporting fellow country-men, making nationality another excellent candidate identity to examine how variations in perceived identity cause variations in the social preferences displayed. Experimental Design and Implementation It is social identity and its inherently variable quality that is at the heart of this study. It is this studys aim to discover in what way the perception of this identity can affect the extent that social preferences are displayed and whether or not a shift of focus from one form of social identity to another will cause a change in degree of social preferences manifested. Given its ability to expose these preferences, an extension of the Trust Game is used