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.

Giving More or Taking More? the Dual Effect of Self-Esteem on Cooperative Behavior in Social Dilemmas

Differences in Cooperation Between Social Dilemmas of Gain and Loss

More cooperation compensates for lower self-esteem in social dilemmas

Riskier for Me or for Others? the Role of Domain and Probability in Self-Other Differences, in Risky Decision-Making

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

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

The Effects of Self-esteem on the Tendency Towards Self-verification: Evidences from Choosing Interaction Partners

When greediness and self-confidence meet in a social dilemma

"Support the strong" or "Help the weak?": The effects of social comparison and social distance on cooperative behavior in the dictator game

Influence of Self-Relevance and Reputational Concerns on Altruistic Moral Decision Making

Moral reasoning and moral competence as predictors of cooperative behavior in a social dilemma

I deserve better outcomes: Self-esteem relates to stronger reactions to unfairness

Competition between self- and other-regarding preferences in resolving social dilemmas

Social rank and social cooperation: Impact of social comparison processes on cooperative decision-making

Is Over-Taking Immoral?—Taking and Donating in Resource Dilemma with No Damage Threshold

The Effect of Preceding Self-Control on Prosocial Behaviors: The Moderating Role of Awe

The influence of cooperation and defection on social decision making in depression: A study of the iterated Prisoner's Dilemma Game

Increasing benefits in one-time public goods does not promote cooperation

Self-interested learning is more important than fair-minded conditional cooperation in public-goods games

Social comparisons differentially affect fair and unfair processing in ultimatum bargaining