Fairness and Wealth Distribution
Author Information
Author(s): Inge Huijsmans, Sarah Vahed, Cătălina E. Răţală, Alberto Llera, Alan G. Sanfey
Primary Institution: Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Hypothesis
How do competing fairness ideals influence wealth distribution decisions in different contexts?
Conclusion
The study reveals that wealth inequality significantly affects how individuals make decisions about resource distribution, with distinct fairness strategies emerging based on the context.
Supporting Evidence
- Participants adjusted their giving behavior based on their own and the receiver's wealth levels.
- Different fairness strategies were identified, including Pro-Self, Table Egalitarianism, Total Egalitarianism, and Moral Opportunism.
- Table Egalitarianism was the most common strategy in the Ultimatum Game, while Pro-Self was more common in the Dictator Game.
Takeaway
When deciding how to share money, people think differently based on how much money they and others have, and they use different fairness rules depending on the situation.
Methodology
Participants played Dictator and Ultimatum Games with varying wealth levels to assess their distributive preferences.
Potential Biases
Potential biases may arise from the self-reported nature of participant demographics and the online setting of the experiment.
Limitations
The study's wealth differences were relatively small, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.
Participant Demographics
Participants were 108 adults from the USA, with an average age of 35.4 years, including 44 females.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p<0.001
Statistical Significance
p<0.001
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website