Abstract:Individuals high in socioeconomic status (SES) are often viewed as valuable members of society. However, the appeal of high-SES people exists in tension with our aversion to inequity. Little experimental work has directly examined how people rectify inequitable distributions between two individuals varying in SES. The objective of the present study was to examine how disinterested third parties adjudicate inequity in the context of concrete financial allocations between a selfish allocator and a recipient who was the victim of the allocator's selfish offer. Specifically, this study focused on whether knowing the SES of the victim or the allocator affected the participant's decisions to punish the selfish allocator. In two experiments (<em>N</em> = 999), participants completed a modified third-party Ultimatum Game in which they arbitrated inequitable exchanges between an allocator and a recipient. Although participants generally preferred to redistribute inequitable exchanges without punishing players who made unfair allocations, we observed an increased preference for punitive solutions as offers became increasingly selfish. This tendency was especially pronounced when the victim was low in SES or when the perpetrator was high in SES, suggesting a tendency to favor the disadvantaged even among participants reporting high subjective SES. Finally, punitive responses were especially likely when the context emphasized the allocator's privileged status rather than the recipient's underprivileged status. These findings inform our understanding of how SES biases retributive justice even in non-judicial contexts that minimize the salience of punishment.

Merit norms in the ultimatum game: an experimental study of the effect of merit on individual behavior and aggregate outcomes

Inequality Aversion or Reciprocity?——An Investigation of Two Kinds of Fairness in the Ultimatum Game

Social preferences across different populations: Meta-analyses on the ultimatum game and dictator game

Behavioral and neuronal determinants of negative reciprocity in the ultimatum game

Effort transparency and fairness

Reputation update of responders efficiently promotes the evolution of fairness in the ultimatum game

“They Never Had a Chance”: Unequal Opportunities and Fair Redistributions

Heritability of ultimatum game responder behavior

Fairness in Multi-Proposer-Multi-Responder Ultimatum Game

Punishing the privileged: Selfish offers from high-status allocators elicit greater punishment from third-party arbitrators

Ultimatum game: regret or fairness?

Proposer's moral identity modulates fairness processing in the ultimatum game: Evidence from behavior and brain potentials

Individualism, Collectivism, and Allocation Behavior: Evidence from the Ultimatum Game and Dictator Game

Equality, equity and incentives: An experiment

Proposers' Economic Status Affects Behavioral and Neural Responses to Unfairness

Economic Inequality and Belief in Meritocracy in the United States

Culture Differences and Individual Choice:An Empirical Study Based on Game Theory

Shallow Meritocracy

Whether others were treated equally affects neural responses to unfairness in the Ultimatum Game.

Influence of peer information and personality on social exclusion in a three‐person dictator game

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