Limits...
Fairness requires deliberation: the primacy of economic over social considerations.

Hochman G, Ayal S, Ariely D - Front Psychol (2015)

Bottom Line: Here we used variants of the ultimatum game to examine this question.Experiment 1 shows that acceptance rate of unfair offers increases when participants are asked to base their choice on their gut-feelings, as compared to when they thoroughly consider the available information.In line with these results, Experiments 2 and 3 provide process evidence that individuals prefer to first examine economic information about their own utility rather than social information about equity and fairness, even at the price of foregoing such social information.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Center for Advanced Hindsight, Social Science Research Institute, Duke University , Durham, NC, USA ; Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya , Herzliya, Israel.

ABSTRACT
While both economic and social considerations of fairness and equity play an important role in financial decision-making, it is not clear which of these two motives is more primal and immediate and which one is secondary and slow. Here we used variants of the ultimatum game to examine this question. Experiment 1 shows that acceptance rate of unfair offers increases when participants are asked to base their choice on their gut-feelings, as compared to when they thoroughly consider the available information. In line with these results, Experiments 2 and 3 provide process evidence that individuals prefer to first examine economic information about their own utility rather than social information about equity and fairness, even at the price of foregoing such social information. Our results suggest that people are more economically rational at the core, but social considerations (e.g., inequality aversion) require deliberation, which under certain conditions override their self-interested impulses.

No MeSH data available.


Acceptance rates of each split as a function of the time constraint condition in Experiment 1. Error bars are depicted in black lines. **p < 0.02, ***p < 0.0005.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4459084&req=5

Figure 1: Acceptance rates of each split as a function of the time constraint condition in Experiment 1. Error bars are depicted in black lines. **p < 0.02, ***p < 0.0005.

Mentions: The acceptance rates of each split as a function of the time constraint condition are illustrated in Figure 1. In line with previous findings, the majority of fair proposals (30% and above) in each phase were accepted, and acceptance rates decreased almost linearly as the offers became less fair. However, contrary to previous research (e.g., Sutter et al., 2003), when the offers were unfair, acceptance rates were much higher in the time-pressure condition than in the no-time-pressure condition (e.g., 27 versus 7% for an 80:20 split, and 19 versus 2% for a 90:10 split). No difference in acceptance rates was observed for fair proposals.


Fairness requires deliberation: the primacy of economic over social considerations.

Hochman G, Ayal S, Ariely D - Front Psychol (2015)

Acceptance rates of each split as a function of the time constraint condition in Experiment 1. Error bars are depicted in black lines. **p < 0.02, ***p < 0.0005.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4459084&req=5

Figure 1: Acceptance rates of each split as a function of the time constraint condition in Experiment 1. Error bars are depicted in black lines. **p < 0.02, ***p < 0.0005.
Mentions: The acceptance rates of each split as a function of the time constraint condition are illustrated in Figure 1. In line with previous findings, the majority of fair proposals (30% and above) in each phase were accepted, and acceptance rates decreased almost linearly as the offers became less fair. However, contrary to previous research (e.g., Sutter et al., 2003), when the offers were unfair, acceptance rates were much higher in the time-pressure condition than in the no-time-pressure condition (e.g., 27 versus 7% for an 80:20 split, and 19 versus 2% for a 90:10 split). No difference in acceptance rates was observed for fair proposals.

Bottom Line: Here we used variants of the ultimatum game to examine this question.Experiment 1 shows that acceptance rate of unfair offers increases when participants are asked to base their choice on their gut-feelings, as compared to when they thoroughly consider the available information.In line with these results, Experiments 2 and 3 provide process evidence that individuals prefer to first examine economic information about their own utility rather than social information about equity and fairness, even at the price of foregoing such social information.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Center for Advanced Hindsight, Social Science Research Institute, Duke University , Durham, NC, USA ; Baruch Ivcher School of Psychology, Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya , Herzliya, Israel.

ABSTRACT
While both economic and social considerations of fairness and equity play an important role in financial decision-making, it is not clear which of these two motives is more primal and immediate and which one is secondary and slow. Here we used variants of the ultimatum game to examine this question. Experiment 1 shows that acceptance rate of unfair offers increases when participants are asked to base their choice on their gut-feelings, as compared to when they thoroughly consider the available information. In line with these results, Experiments 2 and 3 provide process evidence that individuals prefer to first examine economic information about their own utility rather than social information about equity and fairness, even at the price of foregoing such social information. Our results suggest that people are more economically rational at the core, but social considerations (e.g., inequality aversion) require deliberation, which under certain conditions override their self-interested impulses.

No MeSH data available.