IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v8y2013i5p632-638_12.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social distance decreases responders’ sensitivity to fairness in the ultimatum game

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Hyunji
  • Schnall, Simone
  • Yi, Do-Joon
  • White, Mathew P.

Abstract

Studies using the Ultimatum Game have shown that participants reject unfair offers extended by another person although this incurs a financial cost. Previous research suggests that one possible explanation for this apparently self-defeating response is that unfair offers involve strong negative responses that decrease the chances of responders accepting offers that would objectively constitute a net profit. We tested the hypothesis that one way of reducing responders’ rejections of unfair offers is through increased psychological distance, so that participants move away from the concrete feeling of being unfairly treated. Social distance was manipulated by having participants play the Ultimatum Game either for themselves, or for another person. Compared to deciding for one’s self or a close social contact, participants showed less sensitivity to fairness when deciding for a stranger, as indicated by fewer rejected unfair offers. We suggest that social distance helps people move beyond immediate fairness concerns in the Ultimatum Game.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Hyunji & Schnall, Simone & Yi, Do-Joon & White, Mathew P., 2013. "Social distance decreases responders’ sensitivity to fairness in the ultimatum game," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(5), pages 632-638, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:5:p:632-638_12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500003727/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:5:p:632-638_12. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.