Victim Sensitivity and Proposal Size Modulate the Ingroup Favoritism During Fairness Norm Enforcement

People show a strong aversion to inequality and are willing to sacrifice their own interests to punish violations of fairness norms. Empirical research has found that group membership could influence the fairness judgment and norm enforcement of the individuals but has shown inconsistent findings and has not focused much on the potential moderators. Here, the two studies aimed to investigate whether victim sensitivity and proposal size moderate the impact of group membership on reactions to unfair proposals. In both studies, the participants with different victim sensitivity (low vs. high group) played the hypothetical (Study 1) and incentivized (Study 2) ultimatum game under the intragroup and intergroup condition and indicated their responses to the different proposals. Results showed that, regardless of the victim sensitivity, ingroup member is often given preferential and positive treatment. Low victim sensitive persons are more likely to accept unfair offers from the ingroup than the outgroup, while this effect was attenuated for those with high victim sensitivity, especially for highly ambiguous unfair offers (offer 6:4 in Study 1 and 8:2 in Study 2). Moreover, the ingroup favoritism score for ambiguous unfair offers was smaller for high compared with the victim sensitivity group. Taken together, the victim sensitivity, and proposal size could moderate the ingroup favoritism on responses to unfairness.

How Do Basic Personality Traits Map Onto Moral Judgments of Fairness-Related Actions?

Reliance on fairness norms is a core feature of moral behavior and judgment, and is conceptually and empirically linked with basic personality dimensions. However, the specific nature of these links is poorly understood. In this study ( N = 313, 68% female), we employed a novel third-party judgment paradigm, in which participants made moral judgments of various sharing actions of virtual others. This allowed us to capture individual variation in the relative importance of several fairness norms. We correlated these norm profiles with Big Five personality traits. We observed distinct associations between agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, and extraversion and estimates of the importance of generosity, selfishness, relative generosity, and relative selfishness norms. Comparisons of these associations at the domain- versus facet-level of personality traits suggested these relations are specific to domain-level traits. These findings are an important step toward unraveling the complex links between fairness norms and basic personality traits.

EXPRESS: Religious Belief, Religious Priming, and Negative Word-of-Mouth in Everyday Service Failure Encounters

This research examines the effects of religious belief and religious priming on negative word-of-mouth (NWOM) behavior. Drawing on social exchange and norm paradigms, we theorize and find evidence of the unique effects of religious belief and religious priming on NWOM in everyday service failure encounters. Specifically, we find that religious belief is associated with higher NWOM, driven by a greater sensitivity to violations of fairness norms, which in turn reduces forgiveness. However, exposure to religious priming attenuates NWOM among more religious consumers by reducing sensitivity to violations of fairness norms, which in turn enhances forgiveness. A field study involving over 1.2 million online reviews of actual restaurant experiences, in addition to four lab studies, provides support for our theorized effects. Our study sheds light on the religion–forgiveness discrepancy by establishing the mediating role of sensitivity to fairness violations on the relationship between religion and forgiveness in the NWOM context. Further, our results demonstrate the importance of religion as a strategic variable in the management of service failure experiences, providing theoretical implications for the literature on the effects of religion on consumer behavior.

How do Basic Personality Traits Map onto Moral Judgements of Fairness-related Actions?

Adherence to fairness norms is a core feature of moral behaviour and judgment, and is conceptually and empirically linked with basic personality dimensions. However, the specific nature of these links is poorly understood. In this study (N = 313, 68% female) we employed a novel third-party judgement paradigm, in which participants made moral judgements of various sharing actions of virtual others. This allowed us to capture individual variation in the relative importance of several fairness norms. We correlated these norm profiles with Big Five personality traits. We observed distinct associations between Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness, and Extraversion and estimates of the importance of generosity, selfishness, relative generosity, and relative selfishness norms. Comparisons of these associations at the domain- versus facet-level of personality traits suggested these relations are specific to domain-level traits. These findings are an important step to unravel the complex links between fairness norms and basic personality traits.

Why do children punish? Fair outcomes matter more than intent in children’s second- and third-party punishment

Humans punish fairness violations both as victims and impartial third parties, which can maintain cooperative behavior. However, it is unknown whether similar motivations underlie punishment of unfairness in these two contexts. Here, we approach this question by focusing on how both types of punishment develop in children, asking: What motivates young children to punish in response to fairness norm violations? We explore two potential factors: The direct experience of unfair outcomes, and a partner’s fair vs. unfair intentions. Five- and seven-year-olds were given the chance to engage in both 2nd- and 3rd-party punishment in response to either intended or unintended fairness norm violations in a single paradigm. In both age groups, children were more likely to punish when they were directly affected by the allocation (2nd-party punishment) than when they were an uninvolved third party (3rd-party punishment). Reliable 3rd-party punishment was shown only in the older age-group. Moreover, children’s punishment was driven by outcome rather than intent, with equal rates of punishment when unequal outcomes were either the result of chance or the intentional act of another child. These findings suggest that younger children may be mainly motivated to create equal outcomes between themselves and others, while older children are motivated to enforce fairness norms as a general principle.

Gerechtigkeit schlägt Effizienz: Prinzipien der regionalen Umverteilung

Zusammenfassung Obwohl zur Angleichung regionaler Unterschiede in den Wirtschafts- und Lebensverhältnissen von der Politik regelmäßig Fördermaßnahmen eingesetzt werden, legen empirische Befunde nahe, dass deren Wirkung aus verschiedenen Perspektiven heraus beurteilt werden muss. Unter Rückgriff auf unterschiedliche Datenquellen zeigen wir empirisch, dass sich die Legitimität regionaler Umverteilungsmaßnahmen weniger aus ihrer (ökonomischen) Effizienz als der auf Gerechtigkeitsnormen beruhenden Einstellung der Bevölkerung speist. Vor dem Hintergrund der Befragungsergebnisse können die Effizienzeinbußen einer auf die schwächeren Regionen ausgerichteten Ausgleichspolitik allerdings als in der Bevölkerung mehrheitlich akzeptierte Kosten gewünschter Bedarfsgerechtigkeit angesehen werden. Abstract: Justice Beats Efficiency: Principles of Regional Redistribution Although policy makers have used various place-based policies to reduce regional differences in economic and living conditions, it has been empirically proven that their impact should be reflected from different perspectives. Using various sources of data, we empirically show that the legitimacy of regional redistributive measures derives less from their (economic) efficiency than from the attitudes of the population based on fairness norms. The results of our survey show that the loss of efficiency of a redistributive policy aimed at the weaker regions can be considered as the costs of social justice that are generally accepted by the public.

What Justice Is

The overarching question in this chapter is, what makes this theory—indeed, any theory—a theory of justice? Five criteria prominently discussed in the literature—special importance, stringency, claimability, specificity, and rightful enforceability—are examined. The position defended in this book is developed with respect to each criterion. In addition, two norms of structural unfairness pertaining to differentials of power and advantage are distinguished, as are the ways in which each differs from human rights norms. We look first at the ordinary language used in situations of everyday experience. We then extrapolate from basic intuitions about relatively simple patterns of unfairness in interpersonal relationships to gain a better understanding of fairness norms, applicable in more complex contexts where an array of institutions and social practices structure relationships between social groups.