Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2015, Vol. 47 Issue (3) : 353-362     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00353
|
The Effect of Proposer’s Intention, Comparative Payoffs and Absolute Payoffs on the Fairness in Responders with Different Ages
LIANG Fucheng1; WANG Xinyi2; TANG Weihai3
(1 President Office, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, China) (2 Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300074, China) (3 School of Educational Science, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387, China)
Download: PDF(426 KB)   Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks    
Abstract  

Responders often refuse unfair offers at the cost of their own interests in the ultimatum game (UG). Many theoretical and empirical studies are trying to explain this behavior in terms of intention and payoffs. Although social utility model divides payoffs into comparative ones and absolute ones that respectively represent fair tendency and self-interest tendency, few empirical researches have proved this view. Thus, the effects of intention, comparative payoffs and absolute payoffs on individual’s decision in UG were examined. Moreover, how these three factors affected the decision of responders with different ages was also investigated. It was hypothesized that: fairness in responders with different ages had different manifestation, and with the growth of the age, the factors which affected responders’ decision in UG were gradually complicated. To study whether the effects of intention, comparative payoffs and absolute payoffs can be separated in the course of decision, 39 undergraduates and postgraduates were recruited in the first experiment. It was examined whether the rejection times of the same offer in three different conditions existed significant difference. Based on this successful separation design, the second experiment recruited thirty participants in each age group, including younger children group (4-5 years old), older children group (9-11 years old) and teenagers group (16-18 years old). A design of 3 (age group) * 3(distribution situation) * 5 (offer type) was conducted. The three distribution situations were the anonym distribution situation, the random number generator distribution situation, and the computer distribution situation. The offer types included 1/9, 2/8, 3/7, 4/6 and 5/5. It was found that: (1) younger children tended to accept all the offers. (2) compared with other age groups, older children’ s rejection rates in three distribution situations were significantly more, so was that for most offer types. (3) teenagers’ rejection times on 2/8 and 3/7 offers had significant difference in different distribution situations. The rejection times on 2/8 offer in the anonym distribution situation were significantly more than that in the random number generator distribution situation. The rejection times on 2/8 and 3/7 offers in the computer distribution situation were significantly over zero. (4) adults' rejection times on 1/9, 2/8 and 3/7 offers had significantly difference in different distribution situations. The rejection times on 1/9 and 2/8 offers in the random number generator distribution situation were significantly more than that in the computer distribution situation. The rejection times on 3/7 offer in the anonym distribution situation were significantly more than that in the random number generator distribution situation. The rejection times on 1/9, 2/8 and 3/7 offers in the computer distribution situation were significantly over zero. It was indicated that younger children made decision based on self-interest, and they could hardly resist the attraction of absolute payoffs, while older children began to consider about comparative payoffs, and they could resist the attraction of absolute payoffs and pay attention to proposer's intention. Teenagers were in the period of paying attention to proposer's intention and they made decision according to intention and absolute payoffs, whereas fairness in adults was affected by intention, comparative payoffs and absolute payoffs. This study not only enriched the social preferences models about intention and payoffs but also testified the effects of these three factors on individual’s decision in UG. In addition, it provided a reasonable explanation for the fairness in childhood, adolescence and young adulthood.

Keywords fairness      responder      intention      comparative payoffs      absolute payoffs     
Corresponding Authors: TANG Weihai, E-mail: twhpsy@126.com    
Issue Date: 25 March 2015
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Cite this article:   
LIANG Fucheng; WANG Xinyi; TANG Weihai. The Effect of Proposer’s Intention, Comparative Payoffs and Absolute Payoffs on the Fairness in Responders with Different Ages[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica,2015, 47(3): 353-362.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2015.00353     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2015/V47/I3/353
[1] CHANG Shumin, GUO Mingyu, WANG Jingmin, WANG Lingxiao, ZHANG Wenxin. The influence of school assets on the development of well-being during early adolescence: Longitudinal mediating effect of intentional self-regulation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(7): 874-885.
[2] Zhenzhong ZHU,Fu LIU,Chen Haipeng (Allan). Warmth or competence? The influence of advertising appeal and self-construal on consumer-brand identification and purchase intention[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(3): 357-370.
[3] WANG Jianfeng, DAI Bing. The pursuit of fame at the expense of profit: The influence of power motive and social presence on prosocial behavior[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2020, 52(1): 55-65.
[4] ZHANG Ruqian,LIU Jieqiong,LI Xianchun. Neural mechanisms of fairness formation in the perspective of social interactions[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(9): 1007-1017.
[5] SUN Qian,LONG Changquan,WANG Xiuxin,LIU Yongfang. Fairness or benefit? The effect of power on distributive fairness[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(8): 958-968.
[6] HUANG Liang,YANG Xue,HUANG Zhihua,WANG Yiwen. Brain spatio-temporal dynamics of understanding kind versus hostile intentions based on dyadic body movements[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(5): 557-570.
[7] FAN Yafeng,JIANG Jing,CUI Wenquan. The backfire effect of default amounts on donation behavior in online donation platform[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(4): 415-427.
[8] HUANG Fei,WANG Changcheng,SHI Kuankuan,HALIKE Ababaikere,LI Linpeng. Do more contacts bring stronger contact intention? It depends on valence and efficacy[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(11): 1256-1268.
[9] GONG Xiushuang, JIANG Jing.  The effect of incidental similarity (“dress same”) on consumers’ product disposition intentions and its underlying mechanism[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(3): 337-348.
[10] GAN Tian, SHI Rui, LIU Chao, LUO Yuejia.  Cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation on the right temporo-parietal junction modulates the helpful intention processing[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(1): 36-46.
[11] LIN Lin.  Integratin the theory of planned behavior and implementation intention to overcome procrastination[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(7): 953-965.
[12] HUANG Minxue; WANG Yiting; LIAO Junyun; LIU Maohong. Mixed effects of inconsistent reviews on consumers: The moderating roles of product attributes and regulatory focus[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(3): 370-382.
[13] LUO Jun; YE Hang; ZHENG Haoli; JIA Yongmin; CHEN Shu; HUANG Daqiang. Modulating the activities of right and left temporo-parietal junction influences the capability of moral intention processing: A transcranial direct current stimulation study[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(2): 228-240.
[14] LIU Wen, ZHANG Xue, ZHANG Yu, YU Ruiwei.  Fairness cognition-behavior gap in 4~8 year-old children: The role of social comparison[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(12): 1504-1512.
[15] CHENG Ken, LIN Yinghui.  Congruence in organizational support and new generation employees’ turnover intention: The mediating role of employee well-being[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(12): 1570-1580.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech