Victims' Satisfaction With Compensation: Effects of Initial Disadvantage and Third Party Intervention

Abstract

Two experiments examined the reactions of victims of disadvantage to compensation designed to improve their lot. In Experiment 1, subjects participated in an organizational simulation where they were disadvantaged with respect to their pay. Subsequently, a third party intervened with one of a number of strategies which varied according to whether or not the subjects received compensation and whether or not the person responsible for their disadvantage suffered. The interaction between compensation and suffering was significant on a satisfaction measure and the pattern indicated that subjects were most satisfied when the harmdoer suffered to provide compensation. This interaction was not significant on a measure of perceptions of fairness. Experiment 2 examined the possibility that the intervention of the third party in Experiment 1 may have created feelings of indebtedness. In a similar paradigm, subjects were either disadvantaged by a harmdoer or by external events and received compensation that either was or was not accompanied by a request for repayment. When subjects had been disadvantaged by external events, they were more satisfied and felt more fairly treated when there was an opportunity for reciprocation than when there was not, while the opposite pattern was the case when the harmdoer was responsible for the disadvantage. The results were discussed in the context of the complexity of the receipt of aid phenomenon and possible implications for the design of ameliorative social programs.