Abstract

A motivational analysis of decision making in which payoffs are interdependent suggests that choices can be regarded as means of allocating rewards in accordance with certain ethical principles, which may not correspond to “rational” decision criteria of the sort proposed by statistical decision and game theorists—e.g., mazimizing expected utility. Specifically, individuals a and b appear to make maximizing choices with the frequency that is required to maintain or achieve justice in the distribution of rewards—a condition quantitatively defined as equality of the ratios of their perceived relative merit ( X) to the amount of reward ( R) felt to be deserved. Thus, X a R a = X b R b . Experiments designed to test hypotheses derived from this “exchange” theory of choice behavior yielded entirely affirmative results.

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.