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.

Can cognitive dissonance explain beliefs regarding meritocracy?

Economic Inequality and Belief in Meritocracy in the United States

Fairness and limited information: Are people Bayesian meritocrats?

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

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

Can selecting the most qualified candidate be unfair? Learning about socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages reduces the perceived fairness of meritocracy and increases support for socioeconomic diversity initiatives in organizations.

Shallow Meritocracy

Economic Inequality Perception Dampens Meritocratic Belief in China: The Mediating Role of Perceived Distributive Unfairness

Meritocracy, Elitism and Inequality

Conspiracy Beliefs and the Perception of Intergroup Inequalities

Fairness Beliefs Affect Perceived Economic Inequality

System circumvention: Dishonest‐illegal transgressions are perceived as justified in non‐meritocratic societies

Inequality signals in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex inform social preference models

Fairness views and cooperation under varying levels of economic inequality

Cognitive Dissonance or Credibility? A Comparison of Two Theoretical Explanations for Selective Exposure to Partisan News

Justifying Social Inequalities: The Role of Social Darwinism

Selective insensitivity to income held by the richest

Against unfairness: Young children's judgments about merit, equity, and equality

A Reflection on Meritocracy Discourse from the Perspective of Educational Equality and Attribution Theory

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

How Social Class Shapes Attitudes on Economic Inequality: The Competing Forces of Self-Interest and Legitimation