The Effect Of Guilt On Fairness In Game Situations
Yonghao Ye,Yan Xu,Heyun Zhang,Qiudi Feng
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1360/TB-2019-0693
2020-01-01
Abstract:Past theories and studies have already proved the morality of guilt emotions, and have shown that guilt emotions could promote and maintain social fairness in interpersonal interactions and relationships. In a two-party dictator game, guilty individuals often allocate more resources to their victims, and leave themselves with fewer resources, because the bias distribution of the limited resources means a compensatory behavior to the victims afterwards. Obviously, the biased outcome of distribution actually achieves fairness at the level of a two-person relationship. However, in a multi-party dictator game, if guilty individuals intend to compensate their particular victims, their biased allocation behavior will harm the interests of the innocent third parties. Because the more given to victims from the limited resources as a compensatory behavior, the less resources remain for the innocent third parties. At a broader level of a three-person relationship, guilt emotion results in an unfair outcome, even though the fairness between the victim and the guilty allocator seems to be guaranteed.In the current study, two experiments were designed accordingly to test the complicated and multidimensional effects of guilt on outcomes of allocation in different situations above. In Experiment 1, participants were arranged to report their allocation decisions after their reading a short story. While in Experiment 2, participants should take part in a dictator game and decide how to distribute limited resources after their finishing a cooperative task. In both experiments, participants were randomly assigned to either a two-party group or a three-party group, and they were randomly assigned to either a guilt group or a control group. The guilt emotion was induced by the short story in Experiment 1 and was induced by the cooperative task in Experiment 2. Results in both two experiments provided evidence that (1) in a two-party situation, the guilty distributors compensate their victims by giving them more resources and keeping fewer resources for themselves, while (2) in a three-party situation, regardless of whether the guilty distributors needs to allocate some resources to themselves, the guilty distributors compensate their victims by taking advantage of the innocent third parties. These results show the implication of the complicated and multidimensional effects of guilt on social fairness, which may be neglected in previous researches.