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.

Non-Contingent Success Reduces People’s Desire for Processes That Adhere to Principles of Fairness

The Effect of Non-Contingent Success on People's Desire for High Process Fairness

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

Impacts Of Social Comparison And Fairness Facet Preference On Justice Judgments

Self-Perceptions of Fairness in Individual and Group Contexts

Chinese Conceptions Of Justice And Reward Allocation

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

Fairness Heuristics and Substitutability Effects: Inferring the Fairness of Outcomes, Procedures, and Interpersonal Treatment when Employees Lack Clear Information.

Tend to Compare and Tend to Be Fair: The Relationship between Social Comparison Sensitivity and Justice Sensitivity

SENSE OF FAIRNESS OR HUNGER FOR REVENGE? IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE

It's not only what you do, but why you do it: How managerial motives influence employees' fairness judgments

Why does advantageous inequity promote prosocial behavior? The roles of justice sensitivity and guilt

Belonging, Status, or Self-Protection? Examining Justice Motives in a Three-Level Cultural Meta-Analysis of Organizational Justice Effects

Considering Self‐interests and Symbolism Together: How Instrumental and Value‐expressive Motives Interact to Influence Supervisors’ Justice Behavior

All is well that ends well, at least for proselfs: emotional reactions to equality violation as a function of social value orientation

How do people judge fairness in supervisor and peer relationships? Another assessment of the dimensions of justice

Justice Change Matters: Approach and Avoidance Mechanisms in the Self Regulation Process

Do People Embrace Praise Even When They Feel Unworthy? A Review of Critical Tests of Self-Enhancement Versus Self-Verification

Fairness, fast and slow: A review of dual process models of fairness

The fairness of human resource management practices: an assessment by the justice sensitive

Justice Change Matters: Approach and Avoidance Mechanisms Underlying the Regulation of Justice over Time.