Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2014, Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal
Using a relativistic fairness-equity model, this study quantifies the fairness perception by a stimulus-response function. Fairness often requires the comparison between two parties. The relativistic model takes into the account of the relativity in the comparison, depending on whether the comparison is based on a self-centered or an other-centered frame of reference. Using the Ultimatum Game (UG) experimental paradigm, fairness perception is quantified by the fairness stimulus-response function, where the y-intercept represents the baseline fairness and the slope represents the fairness sensitivity. The results show that fairness perception is proportional to the offer-ratio between the proposer and the responder using the self-centered frame of reference, with one exception. The exception is that, at absolute equity (equal share between the two parties), the subjects reported the offer as the most fair, even more fair than the most hyper-equitable offers. This suggests that the subjects switch the frame of reference from a self-centered frame of reference to an other-centered frame of reference. That is, by switching from a local (subjective) frame of reference to a global (objective) frame of reference, the optimization for fairness for both parties can be achieved, resolving the relativistic dilemma that fairness for one person is unfairness for another person. This shows that the relativistic model can describe how fairness perception can be biased relative to the two parties, using a self-centered and an other-centered frame of reference.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal
Quantification of fairness bias in relation to decisions using a relativistic fairness-equity model2014 •
Objectives: This study quantifies the fairness bias in relation to decision by a stimulus-response function using a relativistic fairness-equity model. Methods: The interrelationship between fairness and decision is quantified by using an Ultimatum Game (UG) experimental paradigm in human subjects. Results: The results showed that the fairness perception is shifted upward (toward a higher positive fairness baseline in the y-intercept of the stimulus-response function) for acceptance trials, without changing the slope (which corresponds to the fairness sensitivity). On the other hand, the fairness perception is shifted downward (toward a negative fairness baseline in the y-intercept) for the rejection trials. The analysis also showed that the fairness crossover point is shifted to the left for the acceptance trials, while the fairness crossover point is shifted to the right for the rejection trials. The analysis also showed that there is a singularity point, in which the most equitable offer (even-split) is always considered as the fairest, even when they rejected the offers. This absolute equity is rated as the fairest (even fairer than any of the hyper-equitable offers) independent of whether the subjects decided to accept or reject the offers. Conclusions: The changes in fairness perception are quantified by the shifting of the stimulus-response curve up/down (changing the fairness baseline) or left/right (changing the fairness leniency), without changing the slope (the fairness sensitivity), when the decision is made to accept or reject the offers.
PLoS ONE
Egocentric Fairness Perception: Emotional Reactions and Individual Differences in Overt Responses2014 •
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
A decision-making phase-space model for fairness assessment2014 •
Toward the goal of delineating the underlying decision-making process in relation to fairness, a mathematical model describing the decision criteria is derived. In this fairness-decision model, the decision-making criteria are limited to choose between fairness, equity/disparity and monetary gain. In this model, the decision threshold criteria are represented by the graphical location of the decision space in the fairness-equity quadrant. The fairness decision criterion is determined by the relativistic fairness stimulus-response function representing the relationship between fairness and disparity. The disparity/equity decision criterion is determined by the disparity of the monetary offer. The decision threshold is represented by the graphical intersection between the fairness stimulus-response function and the disparity function. The analysis shows that monetary gain or loss is a consequence of the decision, rather than a decision criterion, unless the decision is already predetermined. The analysis also shows that the paradoxical decisions that seem to be irrational (such as rejecting hyper- equitable offers) are, in fact, logically consistent without being paradoxical or irrational. It is resulted from a bias in fairness perception that shifts the fairness stimulus-response function up/down or left/right around the four fairness-equity quadrants. If either fairness or equity/disparity were used as the sole criterion for decision, no paradox would exist. It is only when both fairness and equity/disparity were used as the decision criteria simultaneously that would have resulted in a paradoxical decision under certain circumstances. But such paradox is merely a shift/bias in the fairness perception without being irrational, as predicted by the present relativistic fairness-equity model.
Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
Whether Others Were Treated Equally or Not Affects Neural Responses to Unfairness in the Ultimatum Game2014 •
Social goals, such as fairness and the avoidance of inequity, can play an important role in guiding human behavior (Dawes, Fowler, Johnson, McElreath, & Smirnov, 2007; Fehr, Bernhard, & Rockenbach, 2008; Henrich et al., 2005; Tabibnia & Lieberman, 2007). Recent research has investigated the role of the brain’s reward circuitry in processing information related to these sorts of abstract, social goals. Consideration of fairness also involves brain regions implicated in awareness of internal states, such as the insula (Rilling & Sanfey, 2011); cognitive control regions, such as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) (Fehr & Camerer, 2007); and regions involved in mentalizing, such as the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) (Frith & Singer, 2008). Thus, brain response to inequity relies on multifaceted social information involving multiple cognitive processes.
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
Rational decision-making process choosing fairness over monetary gain as decision criteria2014 •
Objective: This study tests the hypothesis that the decision-making process in humans is often based on the fairness rather than the monetary gain/loss, when they are confronted with a choice between fairness and monetary gain/loss. Methods: The classical Ultimatum Game (UG) is used as the experimental paradigm to quantify the threshold crossover-point to switch the decision from rejection to acceptance. The fairness stimulus-response function is used for quantifying the decision threshold and the co-variation relationship between fairness and monetary gain/loss. Results: The results show that the level of fairness perception is always 27.5% lower for the rejection decision than the acceptance decision, irrespective of the offer-ratio (i.e., monetary gain/loss) or the baseline level of fairness for that decision. The data also show a co-variation relationship between fairness and offer-ratio (monetary gain/loss), but such proportionality relationship is decoupled at the even-split singularity point. The analysis shows that the decision crossover threshold is located at a slightly unfair perception, indicating tolerance to some unfairness in the decision. This suggests that a rejection decision is made when the unfairness perception threshold is reached. Conclusion: These analyses validated the hypothesis that the decision to accept/reject the monetary offer is logically consistent using the fairness criterion as the threshold for decision along the fairness-axis — even for accepting inequitable offers or rejecting hyper-equitable offers, irrespective of the amount of monetary gain/loss. The apparent decision based on the monetary gain/loss criterion is only a side effect of the co-variation between fairness and monetary gain.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
2000 •
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
Why we are fairer than others: A cross-cultural replication and extension1986 •
2004 •