Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sharing the Fruit of Labor: Flexible Application of Justice Principles in an Ultimatum Game with Joint-Production

  • Published:
Social Justice Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Individuals often need to negotiate how to distribute jointly produced goods—equally (e.g., 50:50) or equitably (e.g., proportionally to their contributions). We examined whether people have stable preferences, or whether they switch between equality and equity in different situations. Pairs of anonymous participants first produced a common pie, and then distributed it in an ultimatum game. Results suggest that individuals apply different justice principles depending on their contribution. When they produced less than 50%, proposers divided the pie equally. However, when they produced more than 50%, their offers fell between equality and equity. Responders’ ratings of fairness and satisfaction varied similarly; with low production, equality was preferred, whereas with high production, equity was preferred. Nevertheless, equal and equitable offers were generally accepted, and only outright unfair offers were rejected. This suggests that individuals are relatively flexible about which justice principle should be applied, but punish proposers whose offers violate both principles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There was no difference between the first and the second half of participants with regards to proposers’ offers and responders’ decisions and satisfaction ratings (all T’s < 1). Hence, this additional rating did not affect behavior.

References

  • Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267–297). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almas, I., Cappelen, A. W., Sorensen, E. O., & Tungodden, B. (2010). Fairness and the development of inequality acceptance. Science, 328, 1176–1178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S., & Camerer, C. (1995). Biased judgments of fairness in bargaining. American Economic Review, 85, 1337–1343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blount, S. (1995). When social outcomes aren’t fair—The effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 131–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blount, S., & Larrick, R. P. (2000). Framing the game: Examining frame choice in bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 43–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bohnet, I., & Frey, B. S. (1999). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games: Comment. American Economic Review, 89, 335–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, G. E., & Zwick, R. (1995). Anonymity versus punishment in ultimatum bargaining. Games and Economic Behavior, 10, 95–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandts, J., & Charness, G. (2011). The strategy versus the direct-response method: A first survey of experimental comparisons. Experimental Economics, 14, 375–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brosnan, S. F., & De Waal, F. B. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425, 297–299.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. New York, NY; Princeton, NJ: Russell Sage Foundation; Princeton University Press.

  • Cappelen, A. W., Hole, A. D., Sorensen, E. O., & Tungodden, B. (2007). The pluralism of fairness ideals: An experimental approach. American Economic Review, 97, 818–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charness, G., & Gneezy, U. (2008). What’s in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 68, 29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherry, T. L., Frykblom, P., & Shogren, J. F. (2002). Hardnose the dictator. American Economic Review, 92, 1218–1221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherry, B., Ordonez, L. D., & Gilliland, S. W. (2003). Grade expectations: The effects of expectations on fairness and satisfaction perceptions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 375–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curhan, J. R., Elfenbein, H. A., & Xu, H. (2006). What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 493–512.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need—What determines which value will be used as basis of distributive justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., Goette, L., & Zehnder, C. (2009). A behavioral account of the labor market: The role of fairness concerns. Annual Review of Economics, 1, 355–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 817–868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe, R., Horowitz, J. L., Savin, N. E., & Sefton, M. (1994). Fairness in simple bargaining experiments. Games and Economic Behavior, 6, 347–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frohlich, N., Oppenheimer, J., & Kurki, A. (2004). Modeling other-regarding preferences and an experimental test. Public Choice, 119, 91–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gächter, S., & Thöni, C. (2010). Social comparison and performance: Experimental evidence on the fair wage–effort hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(3):531–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gantner, A., Guth, W., & Konigstein, M. (2001). Equitable choices in bargaining games with joint production. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 46, 209–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glimcher, P. W., Camerer, C., Poldrack, R. A., & Fehr, E. (2009). Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain. London; San Diego, CA; Burlington, MA: Academic Press Elsevier.

  • Greenberg, J., & Cohen, R. L. (1982). Equity and justice in social behavior. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3, 367–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrich, J., Mcelreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., et al. (2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312, 1767–1770.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, E., Mccabe, K., Shachat, K., & Smith, V. (1994). Preferences, property-rights, and anonymity in bargaining games. Games and Economic Behavior, 7, 346–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, E., Mccabe, K. A., & Smith, V. L. (1996). On expectations and the monetary stakes in ultimatum games. International Journal of Game Theory, 25, 289–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1986a). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. Journal of Business, 59, S285–S300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1986b). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking—Entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76, 728–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komorita, S. S., & Chertkof, J. M. (1973). Bargaining theory of coalition formation. Psychological Review, 80, 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leliveld, M. C., Van Dijk, E., & Van Beest, I. (2008). Initial ownership in bargaining: Introducing the giving, splitting, and taking ultimatum bargaining game. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1214–1225.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S., Camerer, C., & Babcock, L. (1993). Self-serving assessments of fairness and pretrial bargaining. Journal of Legal Studies, 22, 135–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messick, D. M., & Sentis, K. P. (1979). Fairness and preference. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 418–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikula, G. (1980). Justice and social interaction: Experimental and theoretical contributions, from psychological research. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikula, G., Scherer, K. R., & Athenstaedt, U. (1998). The role of injustice in the elicitation of differential emotional reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 769–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oxoby, R. J., & Spraggon, J. (2008). Mine and yours: Property rights in dictator games. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 65, 703–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pillutla, M. M., & Murnighan, J. K. (1996). Unfairness, anger, and spite: Emotional rejections of ultimatum offers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 208–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Range, F., Horn, L., Viranyi, Z., & Huber, L. (2009). The absence of reward induces inequity aversion in dogs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 340–345.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rinck, M., & Becker, E. S. (2007). Approach and avoidance in fear of spiders. Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 38, 105–120. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2006.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Lara, I., & Moreno-Garrido, L. (2010). Self-interest and justice principles. Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas working paper, serie AD.

  • Ruffle, B. J. (1998). More is better, but fair is fair: Tipping in dictator and ultimatum games. Games and Economic Behavior, 23, 247–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, K. R. (Ed.). (1992). Issues in the study of justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwinger, T. (1980). Gerechte Güter-Verteilungen: Entscheidungen zwischen drei Prinzipien. I. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Gerechtigkeit und soziale Interaktion. Bern: Verlag Hans Hubere.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, E. G. (1975). Effect of expectations of future interaction on reward allocations in dyads—Equity or equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 873–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, T., Kiebel, S. J., Winston, J. S., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2004). Brain responses to the acquired moral status of faces. Neuron, 41, 653–662.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skitka, L. J., Winquist, J., & Hutchinson, S. (2003). Are outcome fairness and outcome favorability distinguishable psychological constructs? A meta-analytic review. Social Justice Research, 16, 309–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szymanski, D. M., & Henard, D. H. (2001). Customer satisfaction: A meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29, 16–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabibnia, G., & Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Fairness and cooperation are rewarding: evidence from social cognitive neuroscience. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1118, 90–101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1992). Egocentric interpretations of fairness and interpersonal conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 176–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., Lind, E. A., & Vermunt, R. (1998). Evaluating outcomes by means of the fair process effect: Evidence for different processes in fairness and satisfaction judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1493–1503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, E., De Cremer, D., & Handgraaf, M. J. J. (2004). Social value orientations and the strategic use of fairness in ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 697–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van’t Wout, M., Kahn, R. S., Sanfey, A. G., & Aleman, A. (2006). Affective state and decision-making in the ultimatum game. Experimental Brain Research, 169, 564–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a Grant No. 105514-123671 from the European Science Foundation and the Swiss National Science Foundation and a Grant No. 230331 from the European Research Council. The study also received financial support from the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research in the Affective Sciences, project No. 51NF40-128911.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brain and Learning Laboratory, University of Geneva, Boulevard pont d’Arve 40, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland

    Benoit Bediou, Vera Sacharin, David Sander & Klaus R. Scherer

  2. Laboratory for the Study of Emotion Elicitation and Expression, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

    Benoit Bediou, Christopher Hill & David Sander

Authors
  1. Benoit Bediou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vera Sacharin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher Hill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Sander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Klaus R. Scherer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benoit Bediou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bediou, B., Sacharin, V., Hill, C. et al. Sharing the Fruit of Labor: Flexible Application of Justice Principles in an Ultimatum Game with Joint-Production. Soc Just Res 25, 25–40 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-012-0151-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-012-0151-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation