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.

Rank Reversal Aversion Inhibits Redistribution Across Societies

Rank Preserving Preferences

Self-interest overrides rank-reversal aversion in resource distribution

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

The Development of Children's Preferences for Equality and Equity Across 13 Individualistic and Collectivist Cultures.

Advantageous and disadvantageous inequality aversion can be taught through vicarious learning of others' preferences

Inequality aversion predicts support for public and private redistribution

Protected Income and Inequality Aversion

Common and distinct equity preferences in children and adults

Waste Aversion Reduces Inequity Aversion Among Chinese Children

Perceptions of having less in the U.S. but having more in China are associated with stronger inequality aversion

Low social status decreases the neural salience of unfairness

Social status mediates the propagation of unfairness

The Development of Inequity Aversion in Chinese Children

Age differences of responders' decision-making in disadvantageous and advantageous inequality contexts in the ultimatum game: The role of social value orientation

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

The development of egalitarianism: evidence from children and adults in China

Neural evidence for inequality-averse social preferences

Inequality signals in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex inform social preference models

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

The role of ideological and intergroup mechanisms in predicting opposition to redistribution and discrimination against the lower social class