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.

Ambiguity attitudes of individuals and groups in gain and loss domains

Ambiguity attitudes toward natural and artificial sources in gain and loss domains

Differences in Cooperation Between Social Dilemmas of Gain and Loss

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

Ambiguity Attitudes over Time

Hey, What is Your Choice? Uncertainty and Inconsistency Enhance Subjective Anticipation of Upcoming Information in a Social Context

Are the Poor Worse at Dealing with Ambiguity?

The Effect of Learning on Ambiguity Attitudes

The Influence of the Magnitude of Probability, Loss-Gain Outcome and Need for Cognitive Closure on Ambiguity Aversion

Is Ambiguity Aversion a Preference? Ambiguity Aversion without Asymmetric Information

Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices

Randomization advice and ambiguity aversion

Looming Large or Seeming Small? Attitudes Towards Losses in a Representative Sample

Are ambiguity preferences aligned with risk preferences?

Losing Faith or Appetite? the Impact of Payoff Experiences on Ambiguity Attitudes, Beliefs, and Investment Choice

Social and Strategic Ambiguity Versus Betrayal Aversion.

Ambiguity Aversion in Competitive Insurance Markets with Asymmetric Information

The Formation Mechanism of Ambiguity Aversion:A Perspective Based on the Evaluability Hypothesis

Can Ambiguity Aversion Solve the Equity Premium Puzzle? Survey Evidence from International Data

The Endowment Effect and Decision Preference in Ambiguity Decision Making

Climate policy: How to deal with ambiguity?