Waste Management: How Reducing Partiality Can Promote Efficient Resource Allocation

被引:39
作者
Choshen-Hillel, Shoham [1 ]
Shaw, Alex [1 ]
Caruso, Eugene M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Chicago, Booth Sch Business, Chicago, IL 60637 USA
关键词
fairness; decision making; efficiency; equity; public policy; DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE; SOCIAL PREFERENCES; INEQUALITY AVERSION; PROCEDURAL JUSTICE; DECISION-MAKING; EQUITY THEORY; FAIRNESS; MOTIVES; PARTICIPATION; PRESCHOOLERS;
D O I
10.1037/pspa0000028
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Two central principles that guide resource-allocation decisions are equity (providing equal pay for equal work) and efficiency (not wasting resources). When these two principles conflict with one another, people will often waste resources to avoid inequity. We suggest that people wish to avoid inequity not because they find it inherently unfair, but because they want to avoid the appearance of partiality associated with it. We explore one way to reduce waste by reducing the perceived partiality of inequitable allocations. Specifically, we hypothesize that people will be more likely to favor an efficient (albeit inequitable) allocation if it puts them in a disadvantaged position than if it puts others in a disadvantaged position. To test this hypothesis, we asked participants to choose between giving some extra resource to one person (thereby creating inequity between this person and equally deserving others) and not giving the resource to anyone (thereby wasting the resource). Six studies, using realistic scenarios and behavioral paradigms, provide robust evidence for a self-disadvantaging effect: Allocators were consistently more likely to create inequity to avoid wasting resources when the resulting inequity would put them at a relative disadvantage than when it would put others at a relative disadvantage. We further find that this self-disadvantaging effect is a direct result of people's concern about appearing partial. Our findings suggest the importance of impartiality even in distributive justice, thereby bridging a gap between the distributive and procedural justice literatures.
引用
收藏
页码:210 / 231
页数:22
相关论文
共 98 条
[21]  
Choshen-Hillel S, 2012, JUDGM DECIS MAK, V7, P618
[22]   Agency and the Construction of Social Preference: Between Inequality Aversion and Prosocial Behavior [J].
Choshen-Hillel, Shoham ;
Yaniv, Ilan .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2011, 101 (06) :1253-1261
[23]  
Cohen J., 2013, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
[24]   DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE, EQUITY, AND EQUALITY [J].
COOK, KS ;
HEGTVEDT, KA .
ANNUAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY, 1983, 9 :217-241
[25]  
Damon W., 1977, SOCIAL WORLD CHILD
[26]   What you don't know won't hurt me: Costly (but quiet) exit in dictator games [J].
Dana, J ;
Cain, DM ;
Dawes, RM .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 2006, 100 (02) :193-201
[27]   Exploiting moral wiggle room: experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness [J].
Dana, Jason ;
Weber, Roberto A. ;
Kuang, Jason Xi .
ECONOMIC THEORY, 2007, 33 (01) :67-80
[28]   Egalitarian motives in humans [J].
Dawes, Christopher T. ;
Fowler, James H. ;
Johnson, Tim ;
McElreath, Richard ;
Smirnov, Oleg .
NATURE, 2007, 446 (7137) :794-796
[29]   A Solution to the Mysteries of Morality [J].
DeScioli, Peter ;
Kurzban, Robert .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 2013, 139 (02) :477-496
[30]   It hurts both ways: How social comparisons harm affective and cognitive trust [J].
Dunn, Jennifer ;
Ruedy, Nicole E. ;
Schweitzer, Maurice E. .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 2012, 117 (01) :2-14