Procedural fairness and self-esteem

We argue that people's self-esteem is affected by the fairness of procedures to which they are subjected; unfair treatment will lower self-esteem. Moreover, since this influence on self-esteem is presumably due to the implicit evaluation expressed by the choice of procedure and hence by the evaluation expressed by the person implementing the procedure, people's concern with the fairness of treatment will be focused on the interactional aspects of the procedure. In two experiments designed to test these hypotheses subjects received either a high or a low grade on an ability test on the basis of either fair or unfair grading procedures. The results of Experiment 1 indicated that subjects' self-esteem was lower after unfair treatment, and this influence was only apparent when subjects received high test feedback. Additionally, ratings of the fairness of the interaction were lower following unfair grading procedures. Experiment 2 also manipulated level of involvement with the test. Self-esteem was affected by procedural fairness and procedural fairness influenced perceived fairness of the interaction only in the high involvement condition.     

Motives and Likelihood of Bribery: An Experimental Study of Managers in Taiwan

Many studies of bribery acknowledge the important role of bribe-givers, but their true motives remain unclear. We propose that the likelihood of bribery depends on the willingness of an organization to affiliate with local parties or to be successful in a host country, or to have power over local parties. We further argue that different opportunities, either pervasive or arbitrary, facilitate different types of motives that affect the likelihood of bribery. In addition, we investigate the effect of perceived fairness on the likelihood of bribery. We employ a 3 (motives: affiliation vs. achievement vs. power)?×?2 (opportunities: pervasiveness vs. arbitrariness)?×?2 (perceived fairness: high vs. low) factorial design in experimental settings among Executive MBA students in southern Taiwan. Our findings indicate that, when companies perceive a higher level of distributive fairness, high-achieving organizations are more likely to offer a bribe when the condition is pervasive. When they have a powerful motive, arbitrariness engenders a higher likelihood of bribery. When they perceive less distributive fairness, there are no significant differences between motive and opportunity.     

Dissociation between medial frontal negativity and cardiac responses in the ultimatum game: Effects of offer size and fairness

In the present study, we examined the role of fairness and offer size on brain and cardiac responses in the ultimatum game (UG). Twenty healthy volunteers played the role of responder in a computerized version of the UG in which the fairness and size of the offers were systematically varied. Both fairness and size of the offer influenced the acceptance rates in a predictable way, leading to fewer accepted unfair and low offers. Only unfair high, but not unfair low offers were accompanied by a medial frontal negativity. An unexpected stronger cardiac deceleration to fairer offers was found, which was not affected by the size of the offers. Cardiac and electrocortical measures showed a different relation with performance, and both measures were correlated only modestly. This dissociation between cardiac responses and brain potentials is discussed in terms of a possible differential sensitivity to effects of stimulus probability and violation of the social rules.     

When the means justify the ends: effects of observability on the procedural fairness and distributive fairness of resource allocations

While there is substantial research examining how recipients react to allocations that vary in procedural fairness (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001 ), previous research has not examined how those dividing resources among themselves and others manipulate procedural fairness (Tyler & Smith, 1998 ). In this paper, we introduce a measure that allows us to compare procedural fairness across resource allocations, and we use an experimental procedure in which participants vary the procedural fairness of their allocations. In three studies, we show that those dividing resources make proactive tradeoffs between distributive and procedural fairness. Participants increased the procedural fairness of their allocations when they knew recipients would observe their procedures, but they were less likely to divide the resources equally among recipients. The decreased emphasis on distributive fairness when procedures were observable resulted in higher joint outcomes, suggesting that the observability of procedures has important implications for the efficiency of resource allocation in groups. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

When consumers care about being treated fairly: The interaction of relationship norms and fairness norms

Prior research suggests that people assess overall fairness of an event by focusing on the distribution of the final outcome (distributive fairness) and on how they are treated by others during the conflict resolution process (interactional fairness). The primary goal of this work is to use a social relationship framework to study differences in consumers' responses to interactional fairness as revealed by their evaluations of a brand. Two types of relationships are examined—exchange relationships in which benefits are given to get something back in return; and communal relationships in which benefits are given to take care of others' needs. Results of two studies suggest that the type of consumers' relationship with the brand moderates the effect of interactional fairness such that consumers who have a communal relationship are more responsive to interactional fairness under conditions of low distributive fairness while those who have an exchange relationship are more responsive under conditions of high distributive fairness.     

Conflict resolution and procedural fairness in Japanese work organizations

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine short‐term and long‐term effects of perceived fairness, and to examine relational factors’ effects of procedural fairness in organizational conflicts between employees and supervisors among the Japanese. We asked 154 Japanese employees working in companies to rate their perception of conflicts as well as attitudes towards their own companies. We found that both perception of procedural and distributive fairness produced short‐term effects (satisfaction with outcome of conflicts) and long‐term effects (positive organizational attitudes). Perceived procedural fairness was increased by appropriate treatment of the supervisors, but our prediction that this effect would be moderated by the employees’ identification with organizations was not supported.     

Effects of Interpersonal Affect Upon Fairness Judgment

We examined the effect of interpersonal affect on fairness judgment. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to write down fair and unfair behaviors that positive and negative persons performed, giving as many examples as possible within 5 minutes. Participants wrote more fair behaviors for the positive person than for the negative, and wrote more unfair behaviors for the negative person than for the positive. In Experiments 2 and 3, subjects rated the perceived frequency of 60 behaviors (30 fair and 30 unfair). In both experiments, they evaluated fair behaviors by the positive person to be more frequent than those of the negative, and unfair behaviors by the negative person to be more frequent than those of the positive. The results indicate that fairness judgment is influenced by the participant's positive and negative affect toward the judged object. The effects of positive and negative interpersonal affect on fairness judgment are discussed.     

Procedural and interpersonal fairness moderate the relationship between outcome fairness and acceptance of merit pay

An organizational field study (N = 257) investigated employees' acceptance of a new merit pay system as involving an assessment of whether merit pay can make their earnings more fair, compared to their earnings in the current, seniority-based pay system. We expected that improvement of unfair earnings, and consequently acceptance of merit pay, is considered likely when existing procedures that produce these earnings are unfair, because merit pay improves such procedures. We also expected improvement of unfair earnings, and increased merit pay acceptance, to be likely when employees anticipate fair performance evaluation in a new system, as indicated by fair interpersonal treatment by their supervisor. Results showed that procedural and interpersonal fairness in the existing pay system indeed moderated the relationship between fairness of current outcomes and merit pay acceptance as predicted. Implications for the introduction of merit pay in organizations and for our understanding of the different roles of procedural and interpersonal fairness in outcome evaluations are discussed.     

Sense of fairness in the division of labor in close relationships: Procedure and gender role ideology

The present study examined whether the procedures used in establishing a couple's division of labor and each partner's gender role ideology have a significant impact on the perception of fairness in the division of labor. The data collection involved conducting a questionnaire survey of 181 Japanese participants who shared basic household work and paid work. The results from a multiple regression analysis presented a clear pattern of sex differences in the way and degree to which fairness was perceived. In the model for women, the variables of the procedure and gender role ideology had significant predictive power. In particular, the interactive communication procedure was a powerful predictor of women's sense of fairness. In contrast, among men the perception of fairness in the division of labor did not have a significant relation to the variables of the procedure and gender role ideology.     

Counterfactual comparison modulates fairness consideration in the mini‐ultimatum game: An event‐related potentials study

Existing literature on the mini‐ultimatum game indicates that counterfactual comparison between chosen and unchosen alternatives is of great importance for individual's fairness consideration. However, it is still unclear how counterfactual comparison influences the electrophysiological responses to unfair chosen offers. In conjunction with event‐related potentials’ (ERPs) technique, the current study aimed to explore the issue by employing a modified version of the mini‐ultimatum game where a fixed set of two alternatives (unfair offer vs. fair alternative, unfair vs. hyperfair alternative, unfair offer vs. hyperunfair alternative) was presented before the chosen offer. The behavioral results showed that participants were more likely to accept unfair chosen offers when the unchosen alternative was hyperunfair than when the unchosen alternative was fair or hyperfair. The ERPs results showed that the feedback‐related negativity (FRN) elicited by unfair chosen offers was insensitive to the type of unchosen alternative when correcting for possible overlap with other components. In contrast, unfair chosen offers elicited larger P300 amplitudes when the unchosen alternative was hyperunfair than when the unchosen alternative was fair or hyperfair. These findings suggest that counterfactual comparison may take effect at later stages of fairness consideration as reflected by the P300.     

Responses to exclusion are moderated by its perceived fairness

Experimental exclusion manipulations may induce exclusion in a way that participants perceive as unfair. Groups often use exclusion punitively to correct inappropriate behavior, however, which may lead to perceptions that it is potentially justified or fair. The current studies examined if individuals' perceptions of fairness with respect to an exclusion experience moderated their reactions. Participants wrote about or imagined a time in which they were excluded after they did something wrong (fair exclusion) or excluded even though they did nothing wrong (unfair exclusion) or about a mundane experience unrelated to exclusion (control). Compared with fair exclusion, unfair exclusion resulted in significantly weaker efficacy needs satisfaction (Studies 1, 2, and 4), greater antisocial intent (Study 3), and greater sensitivity to signs of interpersonal acceptance and rejection in a visual search task (Study 4). These results suggest that it is important to consider the role of perceived fairness in shaping responses to exclusion.     

公平加工的情境依赖性：来自ERP的证据

公平是人类社会生活的重要概念。大量研究采用最后通牒博弈, 发现人们具有不公平厌恶倾向, 即宁愿牺牲个人的经济利益, 也要拒绝不公平的分配提议。已有研究表明, 损失情境会增强不公平厌恶, 但其神经机制尚不清楚。本实验采用ERP技术, 运用最后通牒博弈范式, 考察两个情境因素：域(损失或获益)和博弈对象(人或计算机)对公平加工的影响。发现损失域下对不公平分配的拒绝率更高, 而博弈对象对决策行为无影响; 获益域下, 对家为人比对家为计算机诱发了更负的N1; 人机博弈时, 获益域比损失域诱发了更大的P2和LPP, 损失域比获益域、不公平提议比公平提议诱发了更大的N350, 而公平提议比不公平提议诱发了更大的LPP; 人际博弈时, 这些差异均不显著。这些结果表明, 对分配提议的大脑加工受博弈对象的调节, 人际博弈时, 对损益域、公平与不公平提议的加工类似, 而人机博弈时, 损失域和不公平提议涉及更多的抑制加工和冲突解决, 获益域和公平提议则更富动机性意义, 证实公平加工具有情境依赖性。     

Fairness considerations: Increasing understanding of intentionality during adolescence

The development of fairness considerations in decision making is not well understood. Here we tested the hypothesis that increased understanding of intentionality during adolescence underlies increased fairness considerations in social decision making. We conducted three experiments using an adapted version of the Ultimatum Game with participants during four stages of adolescence: 9, 12, 15, and 18 years of age. Participants made or evaluated monetary offers, and we manipulated the intentionality context of offers. Results show that strategic thinking is already present at 9 years of age. There was no age difference in fairness of offers when the responder could not reject an offer (Experiment 1), but when they could reject an offer there was an age-related increase in taking into account the perspective and intentionality of other players when making offers (Experiment 2) and evaluating offers (Experiment 3). Taken together, the results demonstrate a linear developmental transition in fairness considerations that may have important implications for our understanding of social interactions during adolescence.     

Sharing losses and sharing gains: Increased demand for fairness under adversity

There is ample experimental evidence showing that people have a strong preference for equity in wealth allocation and social interaction. Although the behavior of gain sharing and responses to (un)fairness in allocation of wealth has been extensively investigated in studies employing economic exchange games, few studies have focused on how people respond to an unfair division of loss between individuals. In this study we developed a new variant of the ultimatum game and examined the participants' reactions to (un)fairness in both gain and loss sharing. Results from three experiments showed that the rejection rates to unfair offers were generally higher in the loss than in the gain domain. Moreover, participants were inclined to associate loss with “unfair” and gain with “fair”, with stronger associations leading to higher rejection rates in the ultimatum game. Furthermore, in subjective rating, unfair offers were perceived as being more unfair in the loss than in the gain domain. These results demonstrate an increased demand for fairness under adversity and the importance of justice in liability sharing.     

Absolute vs Relative Performance Rating Formats: Implications for fairness and organizational justice

The choice of performance rating format may influence employees' fairness perceptions. Participants in two studies, one consisting of 208 participants and the other of 393 participants, evaluated the fairness of common relative and absolute rating formats. The participants in the second study also evaluated the fairness of two rating formats, one absolute and one relative, presented in organizational contexts of varying procedural and distributive justice. Results indicate that not only are absolute formats perceived as more fair than relative formats, but differences in fairness perceptions also occur among relative and absolute formats. Furthermore, it appears that rating format influences procedural justice, especially when outcomes are perceived as fair. Implications for organizations' appraisal practices are discussed.     

Folk conceptions of fairness and unfairness

This study sought to identify the standards people invoke when judging the fairness or unfairness of outcomes of everyday events, and to determine whether their standards of judgment vary according to the fairness of the outcome and to their perspective, i.e. whether the outcomes are ones they personally experienced or witnessed. The standards of fairness laypeople were found to invoke, even when unprompted, coincided with the standards social scientists have emphasized (e.g. distributive, procedural) in their theories of psychological justice. However, laypeople emphasized these standards differently when accounting for the fairness–unfairness of personal experiences versus those they had witnessed, and when accounting for fair versus unfair outcomes. As predicted, they were more likely to invoke procedural and interpersonal criteria when judging the fairness–unfairness of their own outcomes, but more likely to invoke distributive criteria when judging others' outcomes. Regardless of perspective, laypeople cited procedural criteria as the major determinants of their fairness judgements; but cited procedural, distributive and interpersonal criteria as comparably influential in determining their unfairness judgments. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

大学生在社会困境中的公平决策:社会价值取向的影响

通过两项研究考查大学生在社会困境中的行为决策及公平感体验,检验社会价值取向的影响作用,有效被试分别为85名和84名。结果表明:(1)亲社会者比亲自我者更倾向做公平决策;信息对称比不对称条件更促进被试做公平决策;女生比男生更倾向做公平决策。(2)性别在社会价值取向与信息对称性对公平决策的影响中起调节作用,社会价值取向显著影响男生的公平决策,信息对称性显著影响女生的公平决策。(3)社会价值取向显著影响个体对不公平的容忍度,亲社会者更不容忍不公平行为。(4)对于利己的不公平行为,被试都倾向接受,亲社会者并不比亲自我者体验到更强的内疚情绪;对于不利己的不公平行为,被试都倾向拒绝,且产生较强的不公平感及气愤情绪。     

公平或是利益?权力对分配公平感的影响

通过3个实验逐步考察了高、低权力个体对三种分配方案(公平/劣势不公平/优势不公平)的公平感。结果发现：(1)被试的公平评级从高到低依次为公平、优势不公平、劣势不公平, 做出评级的反应时则从快到慢依次为公平、劣势不公平、优势不公平; (2)相对于低权力被试, 高权力被试对劣势不公平分配的公平评级更低, 而对公平分配和优势不公平分配的公平评级更高, 且做出公平判断的反应时更短。基于这些结果, 作者提出了公平与利益权衡的公平优先效应及权力的自我增强假设, 以更好地理解权力和公平的本质及二者的关系。     

The sunny side of fairness: preference for fairness activates reward circuitry (and disregarding unfairness activates self-control circuitry)

Little is known about the positive emotional impact of fairness or the process of resolving conflict between fairness and financial interests. In past research, fairness has covaried with monetary payoff, such that the mental processes underlying preference for fairness and those underlying preference for greater monetary outcome could not be distinguished. We examined self-reported happiness and neural responses to fair and unfair offers while controlling for monetary payoff. Compared with unfair offers of equal monetary value, fair offers led to higher happiness ratings and activation in several reward regions of the brain. Furthermore, the tendency to accept unfair proposals was associated with increased activity in right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, a region involved in emotion regulation, and with decreased activity in the anterior insula, which has been implicated in negative affect. This work provides evidence that fairness is hedonically valued and that tolerating unfair treatment for material gain involves a pattern of activation resembling suppression of negative affect.     

公平偏好的电生理测量：来自脑电、皮肤电和心电的证据

研究发现,人们普遍具有追求公平的偏好,即人们在追求个人收益时也会关注收益分配的公平性。随着电生理技术的发展,越来越多的研究者采用电生理技术对公平偏好进行深入探讨。本研究从脑电、皮肤电、心电等方面梳理公平偏好的电生理机制。脑电的研究发现,公平偏好相关的脑电主要涉及反馈相关负波和P300;皮肤电的研究发现,相比于公平分配,个体在不公平分配情况下其皮肤电的激活水平更高;心率的研究发现,相比于公平分配,个体遭遇不公平分配时其心率降低。研究公平偏好电生理机制有助于更深入地揭示公平偏好的产生根源与形成过程。未来可从公平偏好电生理的整合研究、公平偏好的脑成像与电生理的整合性探索,以及拓展公平偏好电生理的外部效度和研究范式等方面展开进一步探究。