Abstract
Previous studies have shown that people would like to sacrifice benefits to themselves in order to avoid inequitable outcomes, not only when they receive less than others (disadvantageous inequity aversion) but also when they receive more (advantageous inequity aversion). This feature is captured by the theory of inequity aversion. The present study was inspired by what appears to be asymmetry in the research paradigm toward advantageous inequity aversion. Specifically, studies that supported the existence of advantageous inequity aversion always relied on the paradigm in which participants can determine allocations. Thus, it is interesting to know what would occur if participants could not determine allocations or simply passed judgment on predetermined allocations. To address this, a behavioral experiment (N = 118) and a skin conductance response (SCR) experiment (N = 29) were adopted to compare participants' preferences for advantageous inequity directly when allocations were determined and when allocations were predetermined in an allocating task. In the determined condition, participants could divide by themselves a sum of money between themselves and a matched person, whereas in the predetermined condition, they could simply indicate their satisfaction with an equivalent program-generated allocation. It was found that, compared with those in the determined condition, participants in the predetermined condition behaved as if they liked the advantageous inequity and equity to the same degree (Experiment One) and that the SCRs elicited by advantageous inequity had no differences from those elicited by equity, suggesting that participants did not feel negatively toward advantageous inequity in this situation (Experiment Two). The present study provided mutual corroboration (behavioral and electrophysiological data) to document that advantageous inequity aversion may differ as a function of the individual's role in determining allocations, and it would disappear if individual cannot determine allocations.
Highlights
Equity is a fundamental concern in people’s interactions that influences many aspects of daily life, from how people share their resources with partners to how policymakers shape income distribution policy
A key component of equity is related to inequity aversion, which means that individuals resist inequitable outcomes; that is, they are willing to give up some material payoff to move in the direction of more equitable outcomes (Fehr and Schmidt, 1999; Bolton and Ockenfels, 2000), when they receive less than others and when they receive more
It is noted that the overall preferences for inequitable offers were higher in the predetermined condition, which suggested a facilitating effect of making participants become more accepting of inequitable outcomes with the change of the task feature from determined to predetermined
Summary
Equity is a fundamental concern in people’s interactions that influences many aspects of daily life, from how people share their resources with partners to how policymakers shape income distribution policy. Studies on AI always have the participants themselves decide how to divide some resources between themselves and others and use the proportion that they share as the measure of their degree of AI (Tricomi and Sullivan-Toole, 2015; Xu et al, 2016)1 Studies using this paradigm have found that the majority of participants would offer 40–50% of the total sum to others (see a meta-analysis: Oosterbeek et al, 2004; or a review: Güth and Kocher, 2014). It is implied that current studies, most of which support the existence of AI, have relied solely on the paradigm in which participants can determine allocations while ignoring the paradigm in which they cannot
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
