Fairness Norm Violations Research Articles

Victim Sensitivity and Proposal Size Modulate the Ingroup Favoritism During Fairness Norm Enforcement.

People show a strong aversion to inequality and are willing to sacrifice their own interests to punish violations of fairness norms. Empirical research has found that group membership could influence the fairness judgment and norm enforcement of the individuals but has shown inconsistent findings and has not focused much on the potential moderators. Here, the two studies aimed to investigate whether victim sensitivity and proposal size moderate the impact of group membership on reactions to unfair proposals. In both studies, the participants with different victim sensitivity (low vs. high group) played the hypothetical (Study 1) and incentivized (Study 2) ultimatum game under the intragroup and intergroup condition and indicated their responses to the different proposals. Results showed that, regardless of the victim sensitivity, ingroup member is often given preferential and positive treatment. Low victim sensitive persons are more likely to accept unfair offers from the ingroup than the outgroup, while this effect was attenuated for those with high victim sensitivity, especially for highly ambiguous unfair offers (offer 6:4 in Study 1 and 8:2 in Study 2). Moreover, the ingroup favoritism score for ambiguous unfair offers was smaller for high compared with the victim sensitivity group. Taken together, the victim sensitivity, and proposal size could moderate the ingroup favoritism on responses to unfairness.

Religious Belief, Religious Priming, and Negative Word of Mouth

This research examines the effects of religious belief and religious priming on negative word-of-mouth (NWOM) behavior. Drawing on social exchange and norm paradigms, the authors theorize and find evidence of the unique effects of religious belief and religious priming on NWOM in everyday service failure encounters. Specifically, they find that religious belief is associated with higher NWOM, driven by a greater sensitivity to violations of fairness norms, which in turn reduces forgiveness. However, exposure to religious priming attenuates NWOM among more religious consumers by reducing sensitivity to violations of fairness norms, which in turn enhances forgiveness. A field study involving over 1.2 million online reviews of actual restaurant experiences, in addition to four lab studies, provides support for the theorized effects. This study sheds light on the religion–forgiveness discrepancy by establishing the mediating role of sensitivity to fairness violations on the relationship between religion and forgiveness in the NWOM context. Further, the results demonstrate the importance of religion as a strategic variable in the management of service failure experiences, providing theoretical implications for the literature on the effects of religion on consumer behavior.

Effects of group affiliation on neural signatures of fairness norm violations in antisocial violent offenders

While norm-violating behavior in antisocial individuals has been widely studied, little is known about how these people react to unfair behavior directed towards them. Previous research yields inconclusive results with some evidence for rational and strategic behavior in antisocial individuals. Electrophysiological correlates as well as socio-contextual factors such as group affiliation that may inform decision making on fairness considerations have not been investigated in previous studies.This study compared fairness considerations of antisocial violent offenders (N = 25) and controls (N = 26) by using the Ultimatum Game where one player proposes a split of resources and the other player has to respond by accepting or declining the offer. Group affiliation of the proposer (in- vs. out-group) and fairness of offers (fair vs. unfair) were manipulated.We found no difference between groups regarding decision behavior. However, healthy participants showed an electrophysiological response to group affiliation, which was attenuated in the violent offender group.This data suggests intact understanding of social norms in antisocial violent offenders while electrophysiological response pattern may be linked to impaired emotional reactions to expectancy violations.

Does unfairness sound wrong? A cross-domain investigation of expectations in music and social decision-making.

This study was interested in investigating the existence of a shared psychological mechanism for the processing of expectations across domains. The literature on music and language shows that violations of expectations produce similar neural responses and violating the expectation in one domain may influence the processing of stimuli in the other domain. Like music and language, our social world is governed by a system of inherent rules or norms, such as fairness. The study therefore aimed to draw a parallel to the social domain and investigate whether a manipulation of melodic expectation can influence the processing of higher-level expectations of fairness. Specifically, we aimed to investigate whether the presence of an unexpected melody enhances or reduces participants' sensitivity to the violations of fairness and the behavioural reactions associated with these. We embedded a manipulation of melodic expectation within a social decision-making paradigm, whereby musically expected and unexpected stimuli will be simultaneously presented with fair and unfair divisions in a third-party altruistic punishment game. Behavioural and electroencephalographic responses were recorded. Results from the pre-planned analyses show that participants are less likely to punish when melodies are more unexpected and that violations of fairness norms elicit medial frontal negativity (MFN)-life effects. Because no significant interactions between melodic expectancy and fairness of the division were found, results fail to provide evidence of a shared mechanism for the processing of expectations. Exploratory analyses show two additional effects: (i) unfair divisions elicit an early attentional component (P2), probably associated with stimulus saliency, and (ii) mid-value divisions elicit a late MFN-like component, probably reflecting stimulus ambiguity. Future studies could build on these results to further investigate the effect of the cross-domain influence of music on the processing of social stimuli on these early and late components.

Why do children punish? Fair outcomes matter more than intent in children’s second- and third-party punishment

Humans punish fairness violations both as victims and as impartial third parties, which can maintain cooperative behavior. However, it is unknown whether similar motivations underlie punishment of unfairness in these two contexts. Here we approached this question by focusing on how both types of punishment develop in children, asking the question: What motivates young children to punish in response to fairness norm violations? We explored two potential factors: the direct experience of unfair outcomes and a partner’s fair versus unfair intentions. The participants, 5- and 7-year-olds, were given the chance to engage in both second- and third-party punishment in response to either intended or unintended fairness norm violations in a single paradigm. In both age-groups, children were more likely to punish when they were directly affected by the allocation (second-party punishment) than when they were an uninvolved third party (third-party punishment). Reliable third-party punishment was shown only in the older age-group. Moreover, children’s punishment was driven by outcome rather than intent, with equal rates of punishment when unequal outcomes were either the result of chance or the intentional act of another child. These findings suggest that younger children may be mainly motivated to create equal outcomes between themselves and others, whereas older children are motivated to enforce fairness norms as a general principle.

The cognitive and neural mechanisms underlying norm-enforcement behaviors under social observation.

Abundant evidence has revealed that social observation could enhance people's norm-enforcement behaviors to norm violators. However, whether such enhancement is strategically reputation-based without changes on awareness of social norms or it is accompanied with strengthened perception of norm violations remains unclear. We aimed to test these two hypotheses using a modified Ultimatum Game (UG). Participants played the UG as responders in the fMRI scanner after being instructed the rules of the game and how the observers monitored their performances during the task. Behavioral results showed that unfair offers were perceived more unfair (decreased fairness ratings) and rejected more often under the condition with social observation than that without observation (the control condition). The changes in fairness ratings predicted the increase of rejection rates between two conditions, which provided more evidence for the latter hypothesis. Neural results demonstrated that right insula and anterior cingulate cortex associated with processing norm violations and/or negative emotions were more activated in response to unfair treatments under social observation relative to the control condition. Furthermore, bilateral anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex, and right amygdala (an emotional processing structure) showed increased activations with the reduction of fairness ratings under social observation. Besides, compared to the control condition, rejecting unfair trials under social observation induced more left anterior insula activation. These findings indicated that the increase of norm-enforcement behaviors in the UG under social observation was more than a behavioral strategy for social desirability, but a result of enhanced sensitivity to fairness norm violations and unfairness-related negative feelings.

Mediating role of attenuated physiological arousal on the association between psychopathic traits and fairness norm violation

The low-fear model of primary psychopathy has been supported by empirical findings such as attenuated physiological arousal in anticipation of threatening stimuli. The somatic marker hypothesis proposes that salient changes in the bodily state are processed as signals of whether a situation is good or bad and guide an individual to avoid potential adverse consequences. The present study aimed to elucidate the role that attenuated physiological arousal plays in the relationship between primary psychopathy and fairness norm violations both under the threat of punishment and under no potential for punishment. Primary psychopathy was associated with an attenuated skin conductance response prior to the choice of unfair monetary offers to another person, regardless of the potential for punishment. Attenuated skin conductance mediated the association between primary psychopathy and the choice of an unfair offer, especially in the no-punishment condition. However, in the punishment condition, primary psychopathy significantly predicted the choice of unfair offers even after controlling for the magnitude of skin conductance. The bodily response may have only a marginal effect on interpersonal decision-making under a threat of punishment. The present results suggest that the low-fear account of social norm violations as a function of primary psychopathy should be re-discussed.

Fairness norm violations in anti-social psychopathic offenders in a repeated trust game

Psychopathic offenders have a high propensity to violate social norms, as indicated for instance by their widespread lying and cheating behaviour. The reasons for their norm violations are not well understood, though, as they are able to recognise norms in a given situation and also punish norm violators. In this study, we investigated whether psychopathic offenders would violate fairness norms during a repeated trust game because of increased profit-maximising concerns. We measured back-transfer decisions in the repeated trust game, and affective arousal by means of skin conductance responses (SCR) in violent offenders with varying degrees of psychopathy, and non-offenders with low-trait psychopathy. Psychopathy in offenders was measured with the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R). In the task, a participant and an interaction partner entrusted each other money for multiple rounds with the goal to earn as much money as possible. Fairness norm violations were positively associated with Factor 2 scores (the lifestyle/anti-social psychopathy subscale) of the PCL-R, but this was not accompanied by clear profit-maximising behaviour. In addition, anticipatory arousal to self-advantageous decisions was higher in all offenders, independent of their degree of psychopathy, compared with non-offenders. The results of our study widen our understanding of social decision-making in psychopathy. They also suggest treatment possibilities in offenders scoring high on Factor 2, targeting empathic concern and related prosocial intentions to overcome norm-violating behaviour.

Born for fairness: evidence of genetic contribution to a neural basis of fairness intuition.

Human beings often curb self-interest to develop and enforce social norms, such as fairness, as exemplified in the ultimatum game (UG). Inspired by the dual-system account for the responder’s choice during the UG, we investigated whether the neural basis of psychological process induced by fairness is under genetic control using a twin fMRI study (62 monozygotic, 48 dizygotic; mean age: 19.32 ± 1.38 years). We found a moderate genetic contribution to the rejection rate of unfair proposals (24%–35%), independent of stake size or proposer type, during the UG. Using a voxel-level analysis, we found that genetic factors moderately contributed to unfairness-evoked activation in the bilateral anterior insula (AI), regions representing the intuition of fairness norm violations (mean heritability: left 37%, right 40%). No genetic contributions were found in regions related to deliberate, controlled processes in the UG. This study provides the first evidence that evoked brain activity by unfairness in the bilateral AI is influenced by genes and sheds light on the genetic basis of brain processes underlying costly punishment.

Preschoolers’ Compliance With Others’ Violations of Fairness Norms: The Roles of Intentionality and Affective Perspective Taking

ABSTRACTYoung children are remarkably compliant with social norms, especially those governing fairness and equality. Yet children also frequently observe and face opportunities to violate those social norms, particularly in situations in which doing so is self-beneficial. In 3 studies, we investigated the conditions under which children adhere to social norms using a novel resource distribution paradigm in which children met an experimenter who expressed either a norm-consistent (equal distribution) or norm-inconsistent (unequal distribution) intention. In Experiment 1, we found that preschoolers generally complied with an experimenter’s intention, regardless of its norm consistency. In Experiment 2, the experimenter again expressed a norm-consistent or norm-inconsistent intention but accidentally placed resources in the opposite distribution of that intended. Preschoolers mostly defaulted to the social norm of fairness. However, they were less likely to do so (and more likely to comply with the norm-violating experimenter) when the inequality was self-benefitting. The likelihood of norm defiance in the face of self-benefit appeared to relate to children’s affective perspective taking. In Experiment 3, we found that training preschoolers in affective perspective taking increased the likelihood children would defy a norm-violating experimenter’s unfair intention. Thus, although preschoolers were generally compliant, both fairness norms and affective perspective taking served as important mechanisms to help children selectively defy adults’ instructions and intentions.

It is only fair: blood donors are more sensitive to violations of fairness norms than nondonors - converging psychometric and ultimatum game evidence.

The design of effective donor recruitment campaigns requires an accurate understanding of donor motivations. This requires cross-validation of theoretically derived, psychometrically assessed motivations with behavioural preferences. Theoretical models suggest that blood donors should be more sensitive than nondonors to violations of fairness norms. Specifically, active blood donors, compared to nondonors, should endorse beliefs of reciprocal fairness, norms of both positive and negative reciprocity and reject more unfair offers in a behavioural economic game (the ultimatum game). This study is the first to test this hypothesis. Two studies are reported. One experimental psychometric study (N=400) and one behavioural economic game using the ultimatum game (N=60). Consistent with the predictions, active and lapsed donors, compared to nondonors, were more likely to endorse beliefs of reciprocal fairness and active donors to endorse norms of both positive and negative reciprocity and reject more unfair offers in the ultimatum game. This pattern of motivations was unique to blood donors and not observed for other health (i.e. being on the organ donor register) and nonhealth (e.g. volunteering) prosociality. Blood donors have a heightened sensitivity to unfairness violations. This indicates a very clear and specific line for the development of interventions that align fairness, self-interest and reciprocity, for example voluntary reciprocal altruism (VRA). We also highlight the importance of establishing intervention development within a clinical trials model and emphasize why experimental work of this type is vital.

Behavioral and electrophysiological responses to fairness norm violations in antisocial offenders.

Antisocial personality disorder is characterized by a stable, lifelong pattern of disregard for and violation of others' rights. Disruptions in the representation of fairness norms may represent a key mechanism in the development and maintenance of this disorder. Here, we investigated fairness norm considerations and reactions to their violations. To examine electrophysiological correlates, we assessed the medial frontal negativity (MFN), an event-related potential previously linked to violations of social expectancy and norms. Incarcerated antisocial violent offenders (AVOs, n = 25) and healthy controls (CTLs, n = 24) acted as proposers in the dictator game (DG) and ultimatum game (UG) and received fair vs. unfair UG offers from either another human (social context) or a computer (non-social context). Results showed that AVOs made lower offers in the DG but not the UG, indicating more rational and strategic behavior. Most importantly, when acting as recipients in the UG, acceptance rates were modulated by social context in CTLs, while AVOs generally accepted more offers. Correspondingly, ERP data indicated pronounced MFN amplitudes following human offers in CTLs, whereas MFN amplitudes in AVOs were generally reduced. The current data suggest intact fairness norm representations but altered reactions to their violation in antisocial personality disorder.

Fairness overrides group bias in children's second-party punishment.

Adults and children show ingroup favoritism in their 3rd-party punishment of cooperative norm violations, suggesting that group loyalty importantly shapes enforcement of cooperation. Ingroup favoritism additionally influences punishment of unfairness in the 2-party ultimatum game, in which people are directly affected by unfair behavior. However, the directionality of this relationship is unclear: In some cases, people are more forgiving of ingroup unfairness, whereas in others they are less forgiving. Here we aim to disambiguate this relationship by studying its origins in development, asking whether ingroup favoritism influences children's offers to others and whether it affects their responses to being treated unfairly. Six- to 10-year-olds played a group-based ultimatum game after being assigned to minimal groups and made proposals to-and responded to offers from-members of their in- and outgroups. We tested children's real bargaining behavior in the absence of deception. Results showed that, regardless of group membership, children's primary concern lay with fairness: Participants regularly offered equal splits and were more likely to reject unfair offers than fair offers. Consistent with past work, older children made more generous proposals than did younger children. Although our group manipulation successfully induced ingroup bias in participants, neither children's proposals nor responses were influenced by group membership. This suggests that second-party punishment of fairness norm violations is unbiased early in development and points to the potentially important role of experience with different groups in shaping later emerging bias in norm enforcement. We discuss implications for theories regarding when and to what extent group bias influences cooperation. (PsycINFO Database Record

The interplay between feedback-related negativity and individual differences in altruistic punishment: An EEG study.

To date, the interplay betwexen neurophysiological and individual difference factors in altruistic punishment has been little understood. To examine this issue, 45 individuals participated in a Dictator Game with punishment option while the feedback-related negativity (FRN) was derived from the electroencephalogram (EEG). Unlike previous EEG studies on the Dictator Game, we introduced a third party condition to study the effect of fairness norm violations in addition to employing a first person perspective. For the first time, we also examined the role of individual differences, specifically fairness concerns, positive/negative affectivity, and altruism/empathy as well as recipients' financial situation during altruistic punishment. The main results show that FRN amplitudes were more pronounced for unfair than for fair assignments in both the first person and third party perspectives. These findings suggest that FRN amplitudes are sensitive to fairness norm violations and play a crucial role in the recipients' evaluation of dictator assignments. With respect to individual difference factors, recipients' current financial situation affected the FRN fairness effect in the first person perspective, indicating that when being directly affected by the assignments, more affluent participants experienced stronger violations of expectations in altruistic punishment decisions. Regarding individual differences in trait empathy, in the third party condition FRN amplitudes were more pronounced for those who scored lower in empathy. This may suggest empathy as another motive in third party punishment. Independent of the perspective taken, higher positive affect was associated with more punishment behavior, suggesting that positive emotions may play an important role in restoring violated fairness norms.

Does dishonesty really invite third-party punishment? Results of a more stringent test.

Many experiments have demonstrated that people are willing to incur cost to punish norm violators even when they are not directly harmed by the violation. Such altruistic third-party punishment is often considered an evolutionary underpinning of large-scale human cooperation. However, some scholars argue that previously demonstrated altruistic third-party punishment against fairness-norm violations may be an experimental artefact. For example, envy-driven retaliatory behaviour (i.e. spite) towards better-off unfair game players may be misidentified as altruistic punishment. Indeed, a recent experiment demonstrated that participants ceased to inflict third-party punishment against an unfair player once a series of key methodological problems were systematically controlled for. Noticing that a previous finding regarding apparently altruistic third-party punishment against honesty-norm violations may have been subject to methodological issues, we used a different and what we consider to be a more sound design to evaluate these findings. Third-party punishment against dishonest players withstood this more stringent test.

A Neural Mechanism of Strategic Social Choice under Sanction-Induced Norm Compliance

In recent years, much has been learned about the representation of subjective value in simple, nonstrategic choices. However, a large fraction of our daily decisions are embedded in social interactions in which value guided decisions require balancing benefits for self against consequences imposed by others in response to our choices. Yet, despite their ubiquity, much less is known about how value computation takes place in strategic social contexts that include the possibility of retribution for norm violations. Here, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to show that when human subjects face such a context connectivity increases between the temporoparietal junction (TPJ), implicated in the representation of other peoples’ thoughts and intentions, and regions of ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) that are associated with value computation. In contrast, we find no increase in connectivity between these regions in social nonstrategic cases where decision-makers are immune from retributive monetary punishments from a human partner. Moreover, there was also no increase in TPJ-vmPFC connectivity when the potential punishment was performed by a computer programmed to punish fairness norm violations in the same manner as a human would. Thus, TPJ-vmPFC connectivity is not simply a function of the social or norm enforcing nature of the decision, but rather occurs specifically in situations where subjects make decisions in a social context and strategically consider putative consequences imposed by others.

Fairness violations elicit greater punishment on behalf of another than for oneself.

Classic psychology and economic studies argue that punishment is the standard response to violations of fairness norms. Typically, individuals are presented with the option to punish the transgressor or not. However, such a narrow choice set may fail to capture stronger alternative preferences for restoring justice. Here we show, in contrast to the majority of findings on social punishment, that other forms of justice restoration (e.g., compensation to the victim) are strongly preferred to punitive measures. Furthermore, these alternative preferences for restoring justice depend on the perspective of the deciding agent. When people are the recipient of an unfair offer, they prefer to compensate themselves without seeking retribution, even when punishment is free. Yet when people observe a fairness violation targeted at another, they change their decision to the most punitive option. Together these findings indicate that humans prefer alternative forms of justice restoration to punishment alone.

For Members Only

Although group membership has many privileges, members are expected to reciprocate those privileges. We tested whether in-group members would be punished more harshly than out-group members for marginal fairness norm violations within ultimatum game bargaining interactions. Participants considered monetary splits (of US$20) from in-group and out-group proposers, which ranged in proportion. Accepting an offer yielded the proposed payout; rejecting it caused each player to earn nothing—a punishment of the proposer at a personal cost. Participants exacted stricter costly punishment on racial in-group than out-group members for marginally unfair offers (Study 1), an effect that was replicated with college group membership and magnified among strong in-group identifiers (Study 2). Importantly, ultimatum game decisions were driven by fairness perceptions rather than proposer evaluations (Study 3), suggesting our effects reflected norm enforcement and not esteem preservation. These findings illuminate a previously unexplored process for maintaining group-based norms that may promote in-group favoritism.

“I pick you”: the impact of fairness and race on infants’ selection of social partners

By 15 months of age infants are sensitive to violations of fairness norms as assessed via their enhanced visual attention to unfair versus fair outcomes in violation-of-expectation paradigms. The current study investigated whether 15-month-old infants select social partners on the basis of prior fair versus unfair behavior, and whether infants integrate social selections on the basis of fairness with the race of the distributors and recipients involved in the exchange. Experiment 1 demonstrated that after witnessing one adult distribute toys to two recipients fairly (2:2 distribution), and another adult distribute toys to two recipients unfairly (1:3 distribution), Caucasian infants selected fair over unfair distributors when both distributors were Caucasian; however, this preference was not present when the fair actor was Asian and the unfair actor was Caucasian. In Experiment 2, when fairness, the race of the distributor, and the race of the recipients were fully crossed, Caucasian infants’ social selections varied as a function of the race of the recipient advantaged by the unfair distributor. Specifically, infants were more likely to select the fair distributor when the unfair recipient advantaged the Asian (versus the Caucasian) recipient. These findings provide evidence that infants select social partners on the basis of prior fair behavior and that infants also take into account the race of distributors and recipients when making their social selections.

The duality of virtue: Deconstructing the moral hypocrite

The present study examined the processes giving rise to moral hypocrisy, a phenomenon in which individuals judge their own transgressions to be less morally objectionable than the same transgressions enacted by others. Two alternative models of the source of hypocrisy were compared to determine whether hypocrisy results from automatic or volitional biases. Findings demonstrated not only that participants viewed their own transgressions as significantly more “fair” than the same transgressions enacted by others, but also that this bias was eliminated under conditions of cognitive constraint. These findings support the view that hypocrisy stems from volitionally-guided justifications, and thereby suggest that at a more basic level, humans possess a negative response to violations of fairness norms whether enacted by themselves or others.