Informational Fairness Research Articles

Moral decision-making in context: Behavioral and neural processes underlying allocations based on need, merit, and equality

How to fairly allocate goods is a key issue of social decision-making. Extensive research demonstrates that people do not selfishly maximize their own benefits, but instead also consider how others are affected. However, most accounts of the psychological processes underlying fairness-related behavior implicitly assume that assessments of fairness are somewhat stable. In this paper, we present results of a novel task, the Re-Allocation Game, in which two players receive an allocation determined by the computer and, on half of the trials, one player has the subsequent possibility to change this allocation. Importantly, prior to the receipt of the allocation, players were shown either their respective financial situations, their respective performance on a previous simple task, or random information, while being scanned using functional neuroimaging. As expected, our results demonstrate when given the opportunity, participants allocated on average almost half the money to anonymous others. However, our findings further show that participants used the provided information in a dynamic manner, revealing the underlying principle based on which people re-allocate money – namely based on merit, need, or equality – switches dynamically. On the neural level, we identified activity in the right and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortices related to context-independent inequity and context-dependent fairness information respectively when viewing the computer-generated allocations. At the same time, activity in the temporoparietal and precuneus represented these different types of fairness-related information in adjacent and partially overlapping clusters. Finally, we observed that the activity pattern in the precuneus and putamen was most clearly related to participants’ subsequent re-allocation decisions. Together, our findings suggest that participants judge an allocation as fair or unfair using a network associated with cognitive control and theory-of-mind, while dynamically switching between what might constitute a fair allocation in a particular context.

Fairness-Aware Dynamic Ride-Hailing Matching Based on Reinforcement Learning

The core issue in ridesharing is designing reasonable algorithms to match drivers and passengers. The ridesharing matching problem, influenced by various constraints such as weather, traffic, and supply–demand dynamics in real-world scenarios, requires optimization of multiple objectives like total platform revenue and passenger waiting time. Due to its complexity in terms of constraints and optimization goals, the ridesharing matching problem becomes a central issue in the field of mobile transportation. However, the existing research lacks exploration into the fairness of driver income, and some algorithms are not practically applicable in the industrial context. To address these shortcomings, we have developed a fairness-oriented dynamic matching algorithm for ridesharing, effectively optimizing overall platform efficiency (expected total driver income) and income fairness among drivers (entropy of weighted amortization fairness information between drivers). Firstly, we introduced a temporal dependency of matching outcomes on subsequent matches in the scenario setup and used reinforcement learning to predict these temporal dependencies, overcoming the limitation of traditional matching algorithms that rely solely on historical data and current circumstances for order allocation. Then, we implemented a series of optimization solutions, including the introduction of a time window matching model, pruning operations, and metric representation adjustments, to enhance the algorithm’s adaptability and scalability for large datasets. These solutions also ensure the algorithm’s efficiency. Finally, experiments conducted on real datasets demonstrate that our fairness-oriented algorithm based on reinforcement learning achieves improvements of 81.4%, 28.5%, and 79.7% over traditional algorithms in terms of fairness, platform utility, and matching efficiency, respectively.

Explaining the procedural justice–perceived legitimacy relationship: Relying on relational concern or instrumental concern?

AbstractPeople can extract relational information (i.e., relational concern) as well as instrumental information (i.e., instrumental concern) from decision‐making procedures. Thus, both instrumental and relational concerns are assumed to influence the procedural justice–perceived legitimacy relationship. Drawing from social exchange theory, the different kinds of concerns may lead to form different exchange relationships (social exchange relationship vs. economic relationship), which can be indicated by two forms of trust (affect‐based trust vs. cognition‐based trust). We built a model of trust mediation in which procedural justice predicted affect‐based and cognition‐based trust. Further, we also tested the hypothesis that high (compared with low) group identification individuals are more likely to rely on relational concern to construct procedural justice and judge legitimacy of authority, because they use procedural fairness information to infer the quality of their relationships with the authority. The results of an experiment (Study 1) demonstrated that both affect‐based trust and cognition‐based trust mediated the procedural justice–perceived legitimacy relationship. Moreover, a field study (Study 2) showed that affect‐based trust mediated the relationship between procedural justice and perceived legitimacy primarily among individuals with high group identification whereas cognition‐based trust mediated this relationship primarily among those with low group identification.

Fairness informs social decision making in infancy.

The ability to reason about fairness plays a defining role in the development of morality. Thus, researchers have long been interested in understanding when and how a sensitivity to fairness first develops. Here, we examined infants’ ability to use fairness information in selecting social partners. Using a novel experimental paradigm that combined pre-recorded stimuli with an active behavioral measure, we tested whether infants preferred to socially engage with an individual they had previously seen behave fairly or unfairly. After viewing an individual distribute goods to third parties either equally (i.e., 3:3 distribution) or unequally (i.e., 5:1 distribution), both 13- and 17-month-old infants selectively chose to engage in a social interaction with (i.e., take a toy from) an individual who distributed resources equally. The use of a novel paradigm to assess infants’ fairness preferences demonstrates that infants’ previously established fairness preferences extend across different, more demanding paradigms, and may therefore be more enduring in nature. Together, these findings provide new insights into the nature of infants’ fairness representations, and fill in key gaps in the developmental timeline of infants’ ability to use fairness information in their consideration of potential social partners. In sum, these findings build on previous research by demonstrating that infants not only hold an expectation that resources should be distributed fairly, they also preferentially interact with those who have previously done so. The early-emerging ability to both reason about and use fairness information may play an influential role in the development of complex prosocial behaviors related to morality more broadly.

Research and Discuss on Market model based on Blockchain

Electric power industry is the foundation of national economy and plays a key role in the development of human society. Traditional power industry is monopolized by industry and lacked of market efficiency. In recent years, it is seeking breakthroughs in the market-oriented reform. Although China’s electricity market reform has achieved some achievement, it is still lacked of market players, regional transactions, excessive data management, concentration and other defects. This paper puts forward higher requirements for the system design of power market transactions. The electrical power market is facing with the security and performance challenges, it is to improve the electrical power market transaction mode and to enhance transaction security, blockchain is a new decentralized framework and with a distributed computing paradigm, which integrates and innovates a variety of computer technologies, then it constructed a perfect competitive electricity market system. Using of different levels of multi auction trading model to integrate the province’s trading and inter provincial trading parts in one system. In the part of inter-province trading, it adopted the contract trading and bidding coexist pattern, the trade is carried out in each province Surplus-deficit electricity which based on the meet of the province’s demand basis. By using blockchain, it can conducted the intelligent contract and record the whole transaction information discretely, and provided the inquiry transaction channel to the users, so it can achieve the resource scheduling fairness and transaction information in security.

Fairness, power allocation, and CSI quantization in block fading multiuser systems

This paper studies the fairness, power allocation, and channel state information (CSI) quantization in multiuser systems utilizing multiple feedback bits per user. For a given set of schedulers, we obtain the system throughput with different power allocation strategies and any combination of different fading distributions. Moreover, the system performance under user different outage probability constraints is investigated. Assuming homogenous users, as a special case, the throughput is determined for fixed and random request networks. Considering nonidentical fading channels between the transmitter and receivers, the throughput is found under the K-significant average feedback bit allocation technique, and two suboptimal fairness schemes are investigated which satisfy different quality-of-service requirements. The results show that using optimal power allocation, the first quantization region (QR) of each user is the only QR for which no power may be allocated. The system outage probability vanishes as the number of users goes to infinity. Users hard outage probability constraints can be satisfied at the cost of one more QR in the channel quantizer. Finally, the proposed fairness schemes are more flexible than the standard proportional fair (PF) scheduling in dealing with the throughput-fairness tradeoff. However, their superiority over PF scheduling depends on the fairness constraint.

In the eyes of the beholder? The role of dispositional trust in judgments of procedural and interactional fairness

Previous research on the antecedents of people’s judgments of procedural and interactional fairness has focused primarily on situational factors. Across three studies we find that dispositional tendencies, in particular people’s general propensity to trust others, also influence fairness perceptions. People who were more trusting had more positive perceptions of procedural and interactional fairness, even when they were exposed to identical fairness information. We also found that dispositional trust in particular predicted fairness perceptions whereas other individual difference variables reflecting general positivity did not. Moreover, in all three studies, perceptions of fairness mediated the positive relationship between dispositional trust and work attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment), suggesting that one reason people who are more trusting exhibit more positive work attitudes is because they are more likely to believe they are treated fairly. Implications for the justice and trust literatures are discussed.

In the Eyes of the Beholder? The Role of Dispositional Trust in Judgments of Procedural Fairness

Previous research on the antecedents of procedural fairness judgments has focused primarily on situational factors. We suggest that dispositional tendencies also affect perceptions of procedural fairness. Converging evidence from three studies showed that people’s general propensity to trust others was positively related to their fairness perceptions. Study 3 also found that the positive relationship between dispositional trust and perceived procedural fairness emerged even when participants received identical procedural fairness information, suggesting that the relationship between dispositional trust and fairness was not simply explained by the possibility that those who are more trusting were actually treated more fairly. Study 3 also showed that dispositional trust in particular was predictive of procedural fairness perceptions whereas other individual difference variables reflecting positivity were not.

A Kind of Message-recoverable Fairness Blind Digital Signature Scheme

Blind digital signature indeed protects interests of the participants to some extent, but the anonymity of blind digital signature present exploit opportunities to attackers. Aiming at problems of current fairness blind digital signature schemes can not simultaneously guarantee completely fairness and can not recover message, the paper proposed a kind of message-recoverable fairness blind signature scheme and analyzed its correctness, security and fairness. The analysis results show that the just can authorize user's identity and correspond it to original signature message with this scheme, and the user can not forge fairness information of just.

“When passion breeds justice”: procedural fairness effects as a function of authority's passion

AbstractThe present research examined how procedural fairness predicts negative emotions and withdrawal behavior as a function of authority's display of passion. A first study revealed that reinforcing the concept of passion made the concept of justice and fairness more accessible to participants, as such suggesting that authority passion should make people focus more on procedural fairness information. Corroborating this line of reasoning, a scenario experiment and a laboratory experiment thereafter yielded consistent evidence that the effects of procedural fairness (i.e., voice vs. no voice) were stronger on negative emotions and willingness to withdraw when the authority was passionate relative to not being passionate. In addition, the results of both studies also revealed that negative emotions mediated the effect of procedural fairness on withdrawal, but only so when the authority was passionate (i.e., mediated moderation). It is concluded that more research is needed focusing on the interactions between different authority styles/characteristics and procedural fairness effects. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

What fair procedures say about me: Self-construals and reactions to procedural fairness

Past research has revealed both positive and negative reactions when people receive unfavorable outcomes via fair decision-making procedures. In three laboratory experiments, we reconcile these findings by considering the role of people’s self-identity. Our results suggest that the more that people base their self-identity on their relationships with others—as indexed by a strong interdependent self-construal—the more positively they react to an unfavorable outcome following from fair procedures. Conversely, the more that people base their self-identity on achievement—as indexed by a strong independent self-construal—the more negatively they react to an unfavorable outcome following from fair procedures. Moreover, these results were stronger when the situation primed interdependence and independence, respectively. Our research indicates that people interpret procedural fairness information in a manner that is consistent with defining aspects of the self.

Procedural fairness, outcome favorability, and judgments of an authority's responsibility.

Fairness theory (R. Folger & R. Cropanzano, 1998, 2001) postulates that, particularly in the face of unfavorable outcomes, employees judge an organizational authority to be more responsible for their outcomes when the authority exhibits lower procedural fairness. Three studies lent empirical support to this notion. Furthermore, 2 of the studies showed that attributions of responsibility to the authority mediated the relationship between the authority's procedural fairness and employees' reactions to unfavorable outcomes. The findings (a) provide support for a key assumption of fairness theory, (b) help to account for the pervasive interactive effect of procedural fairness and outcome favorability on employees' attitudes and behaviors, and (c) contribute to an emerging trend in justice research concerned with how people use procedural fairness information to make attributions of responsibility for their outcomes. Practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research also are discussed.

Why do people care about procedural fairness? The importance of belongingness in responding and attending to procedures

The present research tests an important motivational explanation for people's concern with procedural fairness by considering the influence of people's belongingness needs. We predicted that those individuals with a strong need to belong would care more about procedural fairness information and thus they would process that information more carefully, as compared to individuals with a weak need to belong. In Study 1, the need to belong moderated the relationship between the opportunity for voice and self-evaluations. In Study 2, the need to belong moderated the relationship between the opportunity for voice and organizational identification among employees of a multinational healthcare company. Study 3 extends this finding by demonstrating that people with a strong need to belong engage in more careful and systematic processing of procedural fairness information. Together, these findings provide important insight into understanding the motivations that underlie reactions to procedural fairness.

The influence of interdependent self-construal on procedural fairness effects

Various theories have been shown to account for the effects of procedural fairness on people’s attitudes and behaviors. We propose that a logical next step for organizational justice researchers is to delineate not whether, but rather when certain explanations are likely to account for people’s reactions to procedural fairness information. Accordingly, the present research tested the hypothesis that social psychological explanations would be particularly applicable to people high in interdependent self-construal. As predicted, the results of three studies showed that interdependent self-construal (ISC) moderated the relationship between procedural fairness and a variety of dependent variables (cooperation, positive affect, and desire for future interaction with the other party). In different types of interpersonal encounters (social dilemmas, reward allocations, and negotiations), procedural fairness had more of an influence on participants’ reactions among those high rather than low in ISC. Theoretical implications are discussed.

“I Think They Discriminated Against Me”: Using Prototype Theory and Organizational Justice Theory for Understanding Perceived Discrimination in Selection and Promotion Situations

Research in industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology has generally focused on objective measures of employment discrimination and has virtually neglected individuals' subjective perceptions as to whether a selection or promotion process is discriminatory or not. This paper presents two theoretical models as organizing frameworks to explain candidates' likelihood of perceiving that discrimination has occurred in a certain selection or promotion situation. The prototype model stresses the importance of the prototypical victim‐perpetrator combination, the perceived intention of the decision‐maker, and the perceived harm caused as possible antecedents of perceived employment discrimination. In the organizational justice model, procedural, informational, interpersonal, and distributive fairness play a central role in determining candidates' perceptions of discrimination. The fairness heuristic helps to explain which type of fairness information dominates these perceptions. Applications and research propositions are discussed as well as the similarities and differences between the two models. We conclude by offering several factors that may determine which model is used in deciding whether or not discrimination has occurred.

High procedural fairness heightens the effect of outcome favorability on self-evaluations: An attributional analysis

Previous research has shown that outcome favorability and procedural fairness often interact to influence employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, the form of the interaction effect depends upon the dependent variable. Relative to when procedural fairness is low, high procedural fairness: (a) reduces the effect of outcome favorability on employees’ appraisals of the system (e.g., organizational commitment), and (b) heightens the effect of outcome favorability on employees’ evaluations of themselves (e.g., self-esteem). The present research provided external validity to the latter form of the interaction effect (Studies 1 and 4). We also found that the latter form of the interaction effect was based on people’s use of procedural fairness information to make self-attributions for their outcomes (Studies 2 and 3). Moreover, both forms of the interaction effect were obtained in Study 4, suggesting that they are not mutually exclusive. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects.

The current article explores status as an antecedent of procedural fairness effects (the findings that perceived procedural fairness affects people's reactions, e.g., their relational judgments). On the basis of the literature, the authors proposed that salience of the general concept of status leads people to be more attentive to procedural fairness information and that, as a consequence, stronger procedural fairness effects should be found. In correspondence with this hypothesis, Experiment 1 showed stronger procedural fairness effects on people's relational treatment evaluations in a status salient condition compared with a control condition. Experiment 2 replicated this effect and, in further correspondence with the hypothesis, showed that status salience led to increased cognitive accessibility of fairness concerns. Implications for the psychology of procedural justice are discussed.

Selection fairness information and applicant reactions: a longitudinal field study.

Although laboratory studies have found that selection information can affect applicant perceptions, this has not been tested in the field. The authors followed 2 cohorts of police applicants (N = 274) in a longitudinal study to examine the relationship between information, applicant perceptions, and behavior (e.g., turnover). Information was related to perceived fairness measured at the time of testing and 1 month later when applicants received their results. Information moderated the relationship between outcome favorability and test-taking self-efficacy among African Americans but not among Whites. Information was not related to the behavioral measures. The discussion focuses on why certain findings from previous studies were not replicated and on the use of information when applicants have an investment in getting a job.

Selection fairness information and applicant reactions: A longitudinal field study.

Selection fairness information and applicant reactions: A longitudinal field study.

When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority.

On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, the authors argue that when information about whether an authority can be trusted is not available, people will resolve the question of how they should interpret the decisions of the authority by relying on perceived procedural fairness. As a consequence, people who do not have information about authority's trustworthiness react more positively toward the outcomes of authority's decisions if the authority is using fair as opposed to unfair procedures. However, when people know that the authority either can or cannot be trusted, they are less in need of procedural fairness information, yielding less strong effects of procedural fairness on people's reactions. The findings of 2 experiments support the authors' line of reasoning. It is concluded that people especially need procedural fairness when information about an authority's trustworthiness is lacking.