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.

Preference for human, not algorithm aversion

People Prefer Moral Discretion to Algorithms: Algorithm Aversion Beyond Intransparency

An Integrative Perspective on Algorithm Aversion and Appreciation in Decision-Making

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

Prejudiced against the Machine? Implicit Associations and the Transience of Algorithm Aversion

Averse to What: Consumer Aversion to Algorithmic Labels, but not their Outputs?

When Self-Humanization Leads to Algorithm Aversion

A Simple Explanation Reconciles “Algorithm Aversion” and “Algorithm Appreciation”: Hypotheticals vs. Real Judgments

Is algorithm aversion WEIRD? A cross-country comparison of individual-differences and algorithm aversion

Reputational Algorithm Aversion

Algorithm Aversion: People Erroneously Avoid Algorithms after Seeing Them Err

When the Automated Fire Backfires: the Adoption of Algorithm-based HR Decision-making Could Induce Consumer's Unfavorable Ethicality Inferences of the Company

The ABC of algorithmic aversion: not agent, but benefits and control determine the acceptance of automated decision-making

Task-Dependent Algorithm Aversion

Ruled by robots: preference for algorithmic decision makers and perceptions of their choices

Biased Humans, (Un)Biased Algorithms?

Who is the Expert? Reconciling Algorithm Aversion and Algorithm Appreciation in AI-Supported Decision Making

A systematic review of algorithm aversion in augmented decision making

How to overcome algorithm aversion: Learning from mistakes

Michael is better than Mehmet: exploring the perils of algorithmic biases and selective adherence to advice from automated decision support systems in hiring

What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion