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.

Inequality Aversion or Reciprocity?——An Investigation of Two Kinds of Fairness in the Ultimatum Game

Advantageous Inequity Aversion Does Not Always Exist: the Role of Determining Allocations Modulates Preferences for Advantageous Inequity

Fairness preferences in the Ultimate Game: A dual-system theory perspective

Sharing losses and sharing gains: Increased demand for fairness under adversity

Fear of Rejection or Concern for Fairness: the Proposer's Offering Behavior in the Ultimatum Game

Medial frontal negativity reflects advantageous inequality aversion of proposers in the ultimatum game: An ERP study

Reputation update of responders efficiently promotes the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game

Whether others were treated equally affects neural responses to unfairness in the Ultimatum Game.

Responders’ Dissatisfaction May Provoke Fair Offer

Adaptive role switching promotes fairness in networked ultimatum game

Uncertainty Reduces Rejections of Unfair Offers in the Ultimatum Game

Heterogenous Allocation of Chips Promotes Fairness in the Ultimatum Game

The Effect of Similarity on the Evolution of Fairness in the Ultimatum Game

Rule-Inequality-Aversion Preference and Conditional Cooperation in Public Goods Experiments: Economic Experiment Evidence from China

Equal Status in Ultimatum Games Promotes Rational Sharing

Effect of Social Distance on the Response to Unfair Behaviors

Neural Responses to Unfairness and Fairness Depend on Self-Contribution to the Income.

Does a second offer that becomes irrelevant affect fairness perceptions and willingness to accept in the ultimatum game?

Social preferences across different populations: Meta-analyses on the ultimatum game and dictator game

Fairness As A Constraint

I deserve better outcomes: Self-esteem relates to stronger reactions to unfairness