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.

Does a Promise Script Work to Reduce the Hypothetical Bias? Evidence from an Induced Value Experiment

An experimental test of the solemn oath in eliciting sincere preferences

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

Selling Creates A Loss While Buying Generates A Gain: Capturing the Implicit Irrational Bias by the Iat Method

Self-Conscious or Fear of Hurting Another’s Feeling? An Experimental Investigation on Promise-Keeping

Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods

Endowment Effect and the Gap Between WTP and WTA

Testing the effectiveness of lottery incentives in online experiments

Experimental Elicitation of Ambiguity Attitude Using the Random Incentive System

Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity

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

Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?

Temptation: Immediacy and certainty

The Endowment Effect and Repeated Market Trials: is the Vickrey Auction Demand Revealing?

Hypothetical thinking and the winner’s curse: an experimental investigation

On Elicitation-Method Effect in Game Experiments: a Competing Newsvendor Perspective

Debiasing or Rebiasing? Moderating the Illusion of Delayed Incentives

Trust, reputation, and the value of promises in online auctions of used goods

Impact of Ex‐Ante Hypothetical Bias Mitigation Methods on Attribute Non‐Attendance in Choice Experiments

Chinese perspective on newsvendor bias: An exploratory note

A premium for positive social interest and attractive voices in the acceptability of unfair offers? An ERP study