ArticlePNAS nexus2026
The "I" in egalitarianism: Hadza hunter-gatherers averse to inequality primarily when personally unfavorable.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many economists contend that humans have strong, universal, other-regarding equality preferences with deep evolutionary roots. Indeed, many hunter-gatherers have endemic food-sharing and proscriptions against accumulation. These "egalitarian" practices appear superficially consistent with intrinsic equality preferences. Previous experiments, involving donating positive endowments to strangers, seldom match the redistributive equality observed in real-world sharing. Such methods ignore the role of taking, and do not capture sharing dynamics among differentially wealthy campmates. This study, instead, uses a one-player "give-or-take" experiment, with real campmates as recipients, better emulating real-world forager food redistribution. We asked 117 Hadza participants, privately, to redistribute food resources between themselves and a campmate after receiving advantageous and disadvantageous endowments. Although few participants were wholly self-interested, most did not seek general equality. Instead, most tolerated inequality when it benefited them but not when it benefited others. Given advantageous endowments, a minority (40.9%) chose to give, while 30% exacerbated inequality by taking more. Given disadvantageous endowments, many took more than necessary to achieve equality. The modal decision across tasks was to take everything. Only when participants could take from others did results approximate real-world sharing patterns. Findings suggest that intrinsic, private other-regarding fairness preferences need not underlie widespread forager food-sharing, which could be maintained by others' self-motivated demands or extrinsic fairness norms. We also found that men and younger people were more willing to give away advantageous endowments. Further, we found that individuals with greater exposure to cultures outside Hadzaland were more accepting of unfavorable inequality, suggesting that marketization might promote disadvantageous inequality tolerance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.