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.

Allocation of social resources “kidnapped”by the sense of renqing guilt

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

Beyond Distributive Justice: the Reasonableness Norm in Chinese Reward Allocation

Research on Resources Allocation of Public Universities and Its Institutional Choice

The Effects of Power,Social Motive,and Accountability on the Negotiation Cognition,Behavior,and Outcomes

Incentives Against Max-Min Fairness in a Centralized Resource System

Altruism, Favoritism, and Guilt in the Allocation of Family Resources: Sophie'S Choice in Mao'S Mass Send-Down Movement

You Are Excusable! Neural Correlates of Economic Neediness on Empathic Concern and Fairness Perception.

Which is More Important, Proposer Identity or Allocation Motive? Event-Related Potential in Economic Decision-Making

Neural Responses to Unfairness and Fairness Depend on Self-Contribution to the Income.

Allocation of Eldercare Responsibilities Between Children and the Government in China: Does the Sense of Injustice Matter?

Social status modulates the neural response to unfairness

Sharing losses and sharing gains: Increased demand for fairness under adversity

Reciprocal Norms Moderate the Influence of Guanxi on Feelings and Behavior of Closeness

Social comparisons differentially affect fair and unfair processing in ultimatum bargaining

Increased Neural Responses to Unfairness in a Loss Context

Deliberate or Unintended: Intentions Modulate Empathic Responses to Others’ Economic Payoffs in Social Interactions

You Did Not Mean It: Perceived Good Intentions Alleviate Sense of Unfairness

Guanxi Orientation and Subjective Norms in Knowledge Sharing: the Mediating Effects of Loss of Knowledge Power and Codify Effort.

What Makes You Generous? The Influence Of Rural And Urban Rearing On Social Discounting In China

Hukou Identity and Fairness in the Ultimatum Game