Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2019, Vol. 51 Issue (8) : 958-968     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00958
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Fairness or benefit? The effect of power on distributive fairness
SUN Qian1,LONG Changquan2,WANG Xiuxin1,LIU Yongfang1()
1 School of Psychology and Cognitive Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062
2 Faculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715
Download: PDF(649 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

Distributive fairness is a basic behavioral norm and an important pursuit in our daily life, and it plays an important role in our social interactions. In studies of distributive fairness, individuals' fairness perception and the factors affecting it have gathered much research attention. Previous research shows that the degree of fairness allocation can affect individuals' fairness perception. Based on the equity theory of fairness, equal allocation can be perceived as fairness for individuals if they have equal ability and equal contribution to the allocation; less than equal allocation may be perceived as disadvantageous inequality, and more than equal allocation as advantageous inequality. Previous studies also suggest that social situations, such as social hierarchy and social distance, can affect individuals' fairness perception. In real life, resource allocation often involves power situations, in which individuals may have different levels of power. How power influence individuals' fairness perception? Is the fairness perception power-dependent? So far, few studies have explored the effect of power on fairness perception directly. The present study aims to address this question through three experiments.


Based on the approach-inhibition theory, the powerful usually expect themselves to be surrounded by rewards and lack of threats, while the powerless usually expect themselves to be surrounded by threats and lack of rewards. Previous research shows that individuals' cognition and behavior can be affected by their internal expectations, and they are often sensitive to outcomes that violate their own expectations. Equal allocation and advantageous inequality allocation mean reward, while disadvantageous inequality means threat. Thus, equal allocation and advantageous inequality allocation are the expectation of the powerful, and disadvantageous inequality allocation is the expectation of the powerless. Therefore, we hypothesize that the interaction between power and fairness degree can impact individuals' fairness perception.


Three experiments were designed to test the hypothesis. To provide objective basis for the definitions of fairness, disadvantage inequality, and advantage inequality, we measured individuals' fairness ratings on different allocations in both the powerful and the powerless situations, after situation priming that manipulated power perception, in Experiment 1. In Experiment 2, we further investigated individuals' fairness ratings on three different allocations (i.e., disadvantageous unequal allocation, equal allocation, advantageous unequal allocation) in both the powerful and the powerless situations. We also recorded individuals' reaction times of fairness rating in Experiment 2 to gather extra evidence for fairness perception. In Experiment 3, a different manipulation method, role playing, was used to prime power. Same as in Experiment 2, we also recorded the fairness ratings and reaction times of the powerful and the powerless in Experiment 3.


In terms of fairness rating scores, the powerful rated the fairness degree of equal allocation and advantageous unequal allocation higher than the powerless, and they rated the fairness degree of disadvantageous unequal allocation lower than the powerless. In reaction time, the powerful reacted faster than the powerless no matter what the allocation was. These results suggested that individuals' distributive fairness perception is power-dependent, supporting our hypothesis. The present findings provide experimental evidence for the approach-inhibition theory of power and the equity theory of fairness. They also improve our understanding of the relationship between power and fairness perception.

Keywords fairness      benefit      power      distributive fairness      fairness perception     
ZTFLH:  B849:C91  
Issue Date: 24 June 2019
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Qian SUN
Changquan LONG
Xiuxin WANG
Yongfang LIU
Cite this article:   
Qian SUN,Changquan LONG,Xiuxin WANG, et al. Fairness or benefit? The effect of power on distributive fairness[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(8): 958-968.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.00958     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/EN/Y2019/V51/I8/958
  
  
  
类型 公平分配 劣势不公平 优势不公平
高权力 781.24 ± 195.50 1020.13 ± 244.15 1311.44 ± 298.71
低权力 833.05 ± 217.49 1107.04 ± 279.82 1231.66 ± 257.24
  
  
类型 公平分配 劣势不公平 优势不公平
高权力 641.68 ± 160.59 813.24 ± 190.39 1046.30 ± 233.68
低权力 830.40 ± 232.57 965.04 ± 195.05 1220.60 ± 260.94
  
[1] Andersen S., Gneezy U., Kajackaite A., & Marx J . ( 2018). Allowing for reflection time does not change behavior in dictator and cheating games. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 145, 24-33.
[2] Aoki R., Yomogida Y., & Matsumoto K . ( 2015). The neural bases for valuing social equality. Neuroscience Research, 90, 33-40.
[3] Bechtel M. M., Liesch R., & Scheve K. F . ( 2018). Inequality and redistribution behavior in a give-or-take game. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(14), 3611-3616.
[4] Boksem M. A.S., & De Cremer D. , ( 2010). Fairness concerns predict medial frontal negativity amplitude in ultimatum bargaining. Social Neuroscience, 5(1), 118-128.
[5] Brosnan. S F., & de Waal F.B, . ( 2014). Evolution of responses to (un) fairness. Science, 346(6207), 1251776.
[6] Cappelen A. W., Eichele T., Hugdahl K., Specht K., Sørensen E. Ø., & Tungodden B . ( 2014). Equity theory and fair inequality: a neuroeconomic study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(43), 15368-15372.
[7] Chang L.J., & Sanfey A.G . ( 2013). Great expectations: neural computations underlying the use of social norms in decision-making. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(3), 277-284.
[8] Dawes C. T., Fowler J. H., Johnson T., McElreath R., & Smirnov O . ( 2007). Egalitarian motives in humans. Nature, 446, 794-796.
[9] DeScioli P., Massenkoff M., Shaw A., Petersen M. B., & Kurzban R . ( 2014). Equity or Equality? Moral Judgments Follow the Money. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 281(1797), 20142112.
[10] Dunbar N.E., & Abra G. , ( 2010). Observations of dyadic power in interpersonal interaction. Communication Monographs, 77(4), 657-684.
[11] Fehr E., & Schmidt K.M . ( 1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817-868.
[12] Feng C., Luo Y., & Krueger F . ( 2015). Neural signatures of fairness-related normative decision making in the ultimatum game: a coordinate-based meta-analysis. Human Brain Mapping, 36(2), 591-602.
[13] Galinsky A. D., Magee J. C., Gruenfeld D. H., Whitson J. A., & Liljenquist K. A . ( 2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1450-1466.
[14] Gao X. X., Yu H. B., Sáez I., Blue P. R., Zhu L. S., Hsu M., & Zhou X. L . ( 2018) Distinguishing neural correlates of context-dependent advantageous--and disadvantageous- inequity aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33), 7680-7689.
[15] Guinote A .( 2017). How power affects people: activating, wanting, and goal seeking. Annual Review of Psychology, 68(1), 353-381.
[16] Guo X. Y., Zheng L., Cheng X. M., Chen M. H., Zhu L., & Li J. Q ., et al. ( 2014). Neural responses to unfairness and fairness depend on self-contribution to the income. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(10), 1498-1505.
[17] Güth W., Schmittberger R., & Schwarze B . ( 1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 3(4), 367-388.
[18] Kahneman D., Knetsch J. L., & Thaler R . ( 1986). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: entitlements in the market. American Economic Review, 76(4), 728-741.
[19] Keltner D., Gruenfeld D. H., & Anderson C . ( 2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265-284.
[20] LiA M., & Ling W.Q . ( 2007). Mental accounting: theory and the application inspiration. Advance in Psychological Science, 15(5), 727-734.
[20] [ 李爱梅, 凌文辁 . ( 2007). 心理账户:理论与应用启示. 心理科学进展, 15(5), 727-734.]
[21] Li O., Xu F. M., & Wang L . ( 2018). Advantageous inequity aversion does not always exist: the role of determining allocations modulates preferences for advantageous inequity. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 749.
[22] Liu H. H., Hwang Y. D., Hsieh M. H., Hsu Y. F., & Lai W. S . ( 2017). Misfortune may be a blessing in disguise: fairness perception and emotion modulate decision making. Psychophysiology, 54(8), 1163-1179.
[23] Lu G.L., & Chen C.R . ( 2010). An empirical analysis of the fair process effect and the outcome fair effect. Journal of Psychological Science, 33(4), 966-968.
[23] [ 卢光莉, 陈超然 . ( 2010). 公平过程效应和结果公平效应的实证分析. 心理科学, 33(4), 966-968.]
[24] Lv X. K., Wu D., Sui X. Y., Wang X. J., & Cheng J. T . ( 2018). From rational man to behavioral man: The behavioral turn of public policy. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(12), 2249-2259.
[24] [ 吕小康, 武迪, 隋晓阳, 汪新建, 程婕婷 . ( 2018). 从“理性人”到“行为人”: 公共政策研究的行为科学转向. 心理科学进展, 26(12), 2249-2259.]
[25] McAuliffe K., Blake P. R., Steinbeis N., & Warneken F . ( 2017). The developmental foundations of human fairness. Nature Human Behavior, 1(2), 0042.
[26] Rode J., & Menestrel M.L . ( 2011). The influence of decision power on distributive fairness. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 79(3), 246-255.
[27] Sassenberg K., Ellemers N., & Scheepers D . ( 2012). The attraction of social power: The influence of construing power as opportunity versus responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 550-555.
[28] Sawaoka T., Hughes B. L., & Ambady N . ( 2015). Power heightens sensitivity to unfairness against the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 1023-1035.
[29] Sherf E.N., & Venkataramani V. , ( 2015). Friend or foe? the impact of relational ties with comparison others on outcome fairness and satisfaction judgments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 128, 1-14.
[30] Thaler R.H . ( 1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marking Science, 4(3), 199-214.
[31] Thaler R.H . ( 1988). Anomalies: the ultimatum game. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2(4), 195-206.
[32] Wang X., Wang M., Sun Q., Gao Q., Deng M., & Liu Y . ( 2019). Powerful individuals behave less cooperatively in common resource dilemmas when treated unfairly. Experimental Psychology. ( Accepted).
[33] Wang Z.Z., & Jiang W.M . ( 2016). The context-dependency of fairness processing: evidence from behavior study. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 14(5), 600-604.
[33] [ 王珍珍, 蒋文明 . ( 2016). 公平加工的情境依赖性:来自行为的证据. 心理与行为研究, 14(5), 600-604.]
[34] Weick M., & Guinote A. , ( 2010). How long will it take? Power biases time predictions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4), 595-604.
[35] Weiland S., Hewig J., Hecht H., Mussel P., & Miltner W. H. R .( 2012). Neural correlates of fair behavior in interpersonal bargaining. Social Neuroscience, 7(5), 537-551.
[36] Yamagishi T., Horita Y., Takagishi H., Shinada M., Tanida S., & Cook K. S . ( 2009). The private rejection of unfair offers and emotional commitment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 106(28), 11520-11523.
[37] Yang W. Q., Li Q., Guo M. Y., Fan Q., & He Y. L . ( 2017). The effects of power on human behavior: The perspective of regulatory focus. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(3), 404-415.
[37] [ 杨文琪, 李强, 郭名扬, 范谦, 何伊丽 . ( 2017). 权力感对个体的影响: 调节定向的视角. 心理学报, 49(3), 404-415.]
[38] Yu R., Calder A. J., & Mobbs D . ( 2014). Overlapping and distinct representations of advantageous and disadvantageous inequality. Human Brain Mapping, 35(7), 3290-3301.
[39] Zhou X. L., Hu J., & Peng L . ( 2015). The neural basis of the effect of social contexts on fairness perception and fairness-related behaviors. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 13(5), 591-598.
[39] [ 周晓林, 胡捷, 彭璐 . ( 2015). 社会情境影响公平感知及相关行为的神经机制. 心理与行为研究, 13(5), 591-598.]
[1] 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.
[2] ZHU Yue,XIE Jiangpei,JIN Yanghua,SHI Junqi. Power disparity and team conflict: The roles of procedural Justice and legitimacy[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(7): 829-840.
[3] LI Ting, WEI Xiaoping, ZHENG Zixin, YI Xiangjie, ZHAO Xueru, HE Xianyou. The effects of different power relations on negation bias of negative descriptions[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(6): 714-723.
[4] JI Hao,XIE Xiao-Yun,XIAO Yong-Ping,GAN Xiao-Le,FENG Wen. Does power hierarchy benefit or hurt team performance? The roles of hierarchical consistency and power struggle[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(3): 366-382.
[5] LI Xiao-dan,DING Dao-qun,YE Hao-sheng. The influence of embodied implicit power on fair decision making[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(1): 106-116.
[6] . The effects of power on human behavior: The perspective of regulatory focus[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(3): 404-415.
[7] 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.
[8] GAO Min, LI Lin, XIANG Huiwen, SUI Xue, Ralph Radach.  Parafoveal preview benefits during silent and oral reading[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2017, 49(11): 1357-1369.
[9] JIN Fei; ZHU Huawei. Consumers’ power states and impulsive buying[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(7): 880-890.
[10] ZHENG Xiaoming; LIU Xin. The effect of interactional justice on employee well-being: The mediating role of psychological empowerment and the moderating role of power distance[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(6): 693-709.
[11] LU Xinxin; SUN Jiaqing. When leader-member exchange increases emotional exhaustion? The role of belief in reciprocity and power distance orientation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(5): 566-577.
[12] HU Xiaoyong; GUO Yongyu; LI Jing; YANG Shenlong. Perceived societal fairness and goal attainment: The differnet effects of social class and their mechanism[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(3): 271-289.
[13] CHEN Huan; BI Sheng; PANG Jun. The effect of power on consumers’ nostalgia preferences[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(12): 1589-1599.
[14] JIANG Hongyan; WANG Haizhong; HE Yun; ZHU Li. The synergistic effect between corporate image and product’s superior benefits: A stereotype content model approach[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2016, 48(1): 95-105.
[15] RONG Yan; SUI Yang; YANG Baiyin. The Effect of Leader Emotional Intelligence on Group Performance and #br# Employee Attitude: Mediating Effect of Justice Climate and Moderating Effect of Group Power Distance[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(9): 1152-1161.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech