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.

Disclosure and Favoritism in Sequential Elimination Contests

Disclosure Policy in Tullock Contests with Asymmetric Stochastic Entry

Information Favoritism and Scoring Bias in Contests

The Role of Information Revelation in Elimination Contests

Optimal sequential contests

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

Prize and Punishment : Optimal Contest Design with Incomplete Information ∗

Optimal Contest Design with Incomplete Information ∗

Forthcoming in the Economic Journal the Role of Information Revelation in Elimination Contests

Competition among Parallel Contests

Chasing Contests

Picking Winners in Rounds of Elimination

Optimal Prize Allocation in Contests: the Role of Negative Prizes

Multi-prize Contests with Risk-Averse Players

Contests with Sequential Entry and Incomplete Information

Competition among Pairwise Lottery Contests

Information Disclosure in Contests: A Bayesian Persuasion Approach

Confidence Management in Tournaments

Information Sharing in a Contest Game with Group Identity