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.

An Investigation of Seeming Favoritism in Public Procurement

Political Connections with Corrupt Government Bureaucrats and Corporate M&A Decisions: A Natural Experiment from the Anti-Corruption Cases in China

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

Corruption, accountability, and discretion of procurement officials: An analysis of selection Preferences for Performance-based Evaluation Criteria (PBEC) in PPP procurement

Do Auditors Favor Clients with Government Favoritism?

Discretion and political favoritism: Evidence from two reforms in public procurement

On the Judgement of Public Interests of Administrative Requisition

What are the priorities of bureaucrats? Evidence from conjoint experiments with procurement officials

Discretion and Supplier Selection in Public Procurement

Favoritism in Capital Allocation

Reflections on the Government‘s Purchasing Public Service

Favoritism and Markets in Capital Allocation

Political Favouritism and Investment Efficiency

Influence Activities and Favoritism in Subjective Performance Evaluation: Evidence from Chinese State-Owned Enterprises

Rhetoric and reality of public-private partnerships in China: A sustainable public procurement perspective

Determined by Myself or by My Group? Lay Theories of Agency and Favoritism in the Workplace

Discretion and public procurement outcomes in Europe*

Social Ties and Favoritism in Chinese Science

Favoring Eagerness for Remaining Items: Designing Efficient, Fair, and Strategyproof Mechanisms

Why is below average bid auction preferred in procurement?

How competitive is government purchase of social work service? An empirical study of three cities in Guangdong Province, China