The Asymmetric Effect In Fairness Processing And Its Mechanisms

Fairness is an important concept in human society, and thus it has attracted great attentions from researchers in social decision-making area. Using game theory as a framework, researchers have in turn employed several tasks (e.g. Ultimatum Game, UG) to investigate the underlying mechanisms of fairness in the laboratory. These tasks are usually based on an assumption that partners interact symmetrically with equal status (e.g. economic status). However, various types of asymmetry in real life are more prevalent (Van Lange, Joireman, Parks,&Van Dijk,2013), and therefore it is necessary to explore how asymmetries impact UG decisions in social decision-making.Within asymmetric social decision-making, some of them are reversible such as economic status, but some are irreversible such as physical disability. Recent research has suggested that the stability of these asymmetries (e.g., group hierarchy) have a large impact on cooperation in social dilemmas (Maner&Mead,2010). So in this study, I will explore the role of asymmetries in social dilemmas by the following two aspects: reversible and irreversible asymmetries. In particular, I will focus on the effects of responders’advantageous or disadvantageous status and their social value orientations in UG decisions.Study1was to test the asymmetric effects in fairness processing when such asymmetries are reversible (e.g. the initial economic resources). In this study, each experimental session was composed of4participants who were not familiar with each other. The purpose of using4strangers is to reduce reputation building in the repeated-trial game and to make us easy to manipulate their relative economic resources in the4-person group. In the experiment, participants were randomly assigned to3conditions (a control condition, an advantaged condition or a disadvantaged condition) which varied in their payoffs for participating. Their social value orientations were then measured with a nine-item decomposed game instrument. Finally, participants were completed a couple of UG trials and several questionnaires (include emotion rating and fairness rating questionnaires). The main results showed that an advantage-effect was found in UG decisions that higher economic status participants would be more likely to accept unfair UG offers than control economic status participants, and also a disadvantage-effect that lower economic status participants would be more likely to reject unfair UG offers than control participants. The reasons for the advantage-effect was that higher economic status participants may consider it fair to accept lower economic status proposers’small offers, and for the disadvantage-effect was that lower economic status participants showed significantly increased negative emotions in response to unfair offers and these increased negative emotions in fact drive UG rejections. In addition, I also found that participants’SVOs played an important role in the asymmetric effects. This indicated that the advantage-effect may be more prominently displayed by Prosocials and the disadvantage-effect more prominently displayed by Proselfs.Study2was to investigate the asymmetric effects in fairness processing when such asymmetries are irreversible (e.g. healthy people vs. people with physical disability). The procedure in Study2was similar to Study1except the manipulation of advantageous or disadvantageous status. In this study,15participants with physical disability were recruited as a disadvantaged condition, and60healthy participants were randomly assigned to a control condition (no information) or an advantaged condition (participants in this condition would be informed they would play games with disabled people). The main results showed that an advantage-effect was found in UG decisions that participants in advantageous status would be more likely to accept unfair UG offers than control status, and also an anti-disadvantage-effect that participants in disadvantageous status would be more likely to accept unfair UG offers than control status as well. T he reasons for the advantage-effect was that participants in advantageous status may consider it fair to accept disadvantageous status proposers’ small offers, and for the anti-disadvantage-effect was that people with physical disability in disadvantageous status might be actually focused on their own welfare and sought to maximize their own outcomes but show little or no concern with the outcomes of others.From results of the above two studies, the following conclusion can be drawn in this research: (1) Compared to the control status, participants in advantageous status would be more likely to accept unfair UG offers. And such disadvantage-effect in UG decisions may be derived from feelings of fairness that participants in advantageous status may consider it fair to accept disadvantageous status proposers’unfair offers.(2) Compared to the control status, participants in disadvantageous status of the initial economic resources would be more likely to reject unfair UG offers. And the reason for the disadvantage-effect was that increased negative emotions in lower economic status drive UG rejections. However, participants with physical disability in disadvantageous status would be more likely to accept unfair UG offers and the reason may be disadvantageous status may especially trigger a self-centered perspective to participants with physical disability.(3) Participants’ SVOs played an important role in the asymmetric effects of the initial economic resources. This indicated that the advantage-effect may be more prominently displayed by Prosocials and the disadvantage-effect more prominently displayed by Proselfs.