Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Social Justice Research 4/2017

22.09.2017

Who Sees What as Fair? Mapping Individual Differences in Valuation of Reciprocity, Charity, and Impartiality

verfasst von: Laura Niemi, Liane Young

Erschienen in: Social Justice Research | Ausgabe 4/2017

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

When scarce resources are allocated, different criteria may be considered: impersonal allocation (impartiality), the needs of specific individuals (charity), or the relational ties between individuals (reciprocity). In the present research, we investigated how people’s perspectives on fairness relate to individual differences in interpersonal orientations. Participants evaluated the fairness of allocations based on (a) impartiality, (b) charity, and (c) reciprocity. To assess interpersonal orientations, we administered measures of dispositional empathy (i.e., empathic concern and perspective taking) and Machiavellianism. Across two studies, Machiavellianism correlated with higher ratings of reciprocity as fair, whereas empathic concern and perspective taking correlated with higher ratings of charity as fair. We discuss these findings in relation to recent neuroscientific research on empathy, fairness, and moral evaluations of resource allocations.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
Two participants were excluded for answering “1 = Strongly Disagree” or “2 = Disagree” on a Scale from 1 to 5 (3 = “Neither Agree nor Disagree,” 4 = “Agree,” 5 = “Strongly Agree”) in response to an attention check question embedded in the Machiavellian scale: “I dislike forgetting to bring money when I go out to buy something.” We also administered items assessing how much participants judged the action of the protagonist to be morally blameworthy or praiseworthy, liked the protagonist, wanted to be friends with the protagonist, thought they’d get along with the protagonist, and would make the same decision as the protagonist, not discussed here. Additionally, we administered the Autism Quotient and the Social Values Orientation task (Van Lange, Otten, De Bruin & Joireman, 1997; see Supplementary Material “Allocation Task”).
 
2
Exclusions were based on participants’ failure on either of two catch questions embedded in the MPS (answering “1 = Completely Disagree” or “2” on a Scale from 1–5 (3 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 4, 5 = “Completely agree”) to “Humans need food and water in order to survive,” or “4” or “5” (same scale) to “I believe the human race has only existed for about 100 years total”), or completion of the MPS in under 30 s.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396.CrossRefPubMed Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211(4489), 1390–1396.CrossRefPubMed
Zurück zum Zitat Baron, J. (1994). Blind justice: Fairness to groups and the do-no-harm principle. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8, 71–83.CrossRef Baron, J. (1994). Blind justice: Fairness to groups and the do-no-harm principle. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8, 71–83.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Baumard, N., Andre, J.-B., & Sperber, D. (2013). A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 59–122.CrossRefPubMed Baumard, N., Andre, J.-B., & Sperber, D. (2013). A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 59–122.CrossRefPubMed
Zurück zum Zitat Bereczkei, T. (2015). The manipulative skill: Cognitive devices and their neural correlates underlying Machiavellian's decision making. Brain and Cognition, 99, 24–31.CrossRefPubMed Bereczkei, T. (2015). The manipulative skill: Cognitive devices and their neural correlates underlying Machiavellian's decision making. Brain and Cognition, 99, 24–31.CrossRefPubMed
Zurück zum Zitat Czibor, A., & Bereczkei, T. (2012). Machiavellian people’s success results from monitoring their partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 202–206.CrossRef Czibor, A., & Bereczkei, T. (2012). Machiavellian people’s success results from monitoring their partners. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 202–206.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35, 219–257.CrossRef Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35, 219–257.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Zurück zum Zitat Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.CrossRef Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137–149.CrossRef Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137–149.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Elster, J. (2006). Fairness and norms. Social Research, 73(2), 365–376. Elster, J. (2006). Fairness and norms. Social Research, 73(2), 365–376.
Zurück zum Zitat Engen, H. G., & Singer, T. (2012). Empathy circuits. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(2), 275–282.CrossRefPubMed Engen, H. G., & Singer, T. (2012). Empathy circuits. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 23(2), 275–282.CrossRefPubMed
Zurück zum Zitat Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366–385.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366–385.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Zurück zum Zitat Gurven, M. (2006). The evolution of contingent cooperation. Current Anthropology, 47, 185–192.CrossRef Gurven, M. (2006). The evolution of contingent cooperation. Current Anthropology, 47, 185–192.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hill, K., & Kaplan, H. (1993). On why male foragers hunt and share food. Current Anthropology, 34(5), 701–710.CrossRef Hill, K., & Kaplan, H. (1993). On why male foragers hunt and share food. Current Anthropology, 34(5), 701–710.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRef Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Niemi, L., & Young, L. (2013). Caring across boundaries versus keeping boundaries intact: Links between moral values and interpersonal orientations. PLoS One, 8(12), e81605.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Niemi, L., & Young, L. (2013). Caring across boundaries versus keeping boundaries intact: Links between moral values and interpersonal orientations. PLoS One, 8(12), e81605.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Zurück zum Zitat Noser, A. E., Zeigler-Hill, V., Vrabel, J. K., Besser, A., Ewing, T. D., & Southard, A. C. (2015). Dark and immoral: The links between pathological personality features and moral values. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 30–35.CrossRef Noser, A. E., Zeigler-Hill, V., Vrabel, J. K., Besser, A., Ewing, T. D., & Southard, A. C. (2015). Dark and immoral: The links between pathological personality features and moral values. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 30–35.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Rand, D. G., & Nowak, M. A. (2013). Human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 413–425.CrossRefPubMed Rand, D. G., & Nowak, M. A. (2013). Human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 413–425.CrossRefPubMed
Zurück zum Zitat Rasinski, K. A. (1987). What’s fair is fair—Or is it? Value differences underlying public views about social justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 201–211.CrossRef Rasinski, K. A. (1987). What’s fair is fair—Or is it? Value differences underlying public views about social justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 201–211.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Shaw, A. (2013). Beyond “to Share or Not to Share”: The impartiality account of fairness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 413–417.CrossRef Shaw, A. (2013). Beyond “to Share or Not to Share”: The impartiality account of fairness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 413–417.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Spitzer, M., Fischbacher, U., Herrnberger, B., Grön, G., & Fehr, E. (2007). The neural signatures of social norm compliance. Neuron, 56(1), 185–196.CrossRefPubMed Spitzer, M., Fischbacher, U., Herrnberger, B., Grön, G., & Fehr, E. (2007). The neural signatures of social norm compliance. Neuron, 56(1), 185–196.CrossRefPubMed
Zurück zum Zitat Trivers, R. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.CrossRef Trivers, R. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 850.CrossRef Tyler, T. R. (1994). Psychological models of the justice motive: Antecedents of distributive and procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 850.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Van Beest, I., Van Dijk, E., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2005). Do-no-harm in coalition formation: Why losses inhibit exclusion and promote fairness cognitions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 609–617.CrossRef Van Beest, I., Van Dijk, E., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2005). Do-no-harm in coalition formation: Why losses inhibit exclusion and promote fairness cognitions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 609–617.CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Van Lange, P. A. M., Otten, W., De Bruin, E. M. N., & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 733–746.CrossRefPubMed Van Lange, P. A. M., Otten, W., De Bruin, E. M. N., & Joireman, J. A. (1997). Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: Theory and preliminary evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 733–746.CrossRefPubMed
Zurück zum Zitat Wedekind, C., & Milinski, M. (2000). Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science, 288, 850–852.CrossRefPubMed Wedekind, C., & Milinski, M. (2000). Cooperation through image scoring in humans. Science, 288, 850–852.CrossRefPubMed
Zurück zum Zitat Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 285–299.CrossRefPubMed Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 285–299.CrossRefPubMed
Zurück zum Zitat Wolff, J. (2007). Models of distributive justice. In Empathy and fairness: Novartis Foundation Symposium 278 (pp. 165–170). Basel: Novartis Foundation. Wolff, J. (2007). Models of distributive justice. In Empathy and fairness: Novartis Foundation Symposium 278 (pp. 165–170). Basel: Novartis Foundation.
Zurück zum Zitat Zeigler-Hill, V., Noser, A. E., Roof, C., Vonk, J., & Marcus, D. K. (2015). Spitefulness and moral values. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 86–90.CrossRef Zeigler-Hill, V., Noser, A. E., Roof, C., Vonk, J., & Marcus, D. K. (2015). Spitefulness and moral values. Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 86–90.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Who Sees What as Fair? Mapping Individual Differences in Valuation of Reciprocity, Charity, and Impartiality
verfasst von
Laura Niemi
Liane Young
Publikationsdatum
22.09.2017
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Social Justice Research / Ausgabe 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0885-7466
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6725
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-017-0291-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2017

Social Justice Research 4/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Premium Partner