IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0031491.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

There's Something about a Fair Split: Intentionality Moderates Context-Based Fairness Considerations in Social Decision-Making

Author

Listed:
  • Sina Radke
  • Berna Güroğlu
  • Ellen R A de Bruijn

Abstract

Fairness considerations are a strong motivational force in social decision-making. Here, we investigated the role of intentionality in response to unfair offers in the Ultimatum Game by manipulating both proposers' degree of control over the selection of offers and the context pertaining to the outcomes of offers proposers can choose from. As a result, the design enabled us to disentangle intention- and context-based decision-making processes. Rejection rates were higher when an unfair offer was intentionally chosen over a fair alternative than when it was chosen by the computer, outside proposers' control. This finding provides direct evidence for intention-based decision-making. Also, rejection rates in general were sensitive to the context in which an offer was made, indicating the involvement of both intention- and context-based processes in social decision-making. Importantly, however, the current study highlights the role of intention-based fairness considerations in basic decision-making situations where outcomes are explicitly stated and thus easy to compare. Based on these results, we propose that fairness can be judged on different, but additive levels of (social-) cognitive processing that might have different developmental trajectories.

Suggested Citation

  • Sina Radke & Berna Güroğlu & Ellen R A de Bruijn, 2012. "There's Something about a Fair Split: Intentionality Moderates Context-Based Fairness Considerations in Social Decision-Making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-6, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0031491
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031491
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0031491
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0031491&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0031491?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    2. Falk, Armin & Fehr, Ernst & Fischbacher, Urs, 2008. "Testing theories of fairness--Intentions matter," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 287-303, January.
    3. Armin Falk & Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2003. "On the Nature of Fair Behavior," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 41(1), pages 20-26, January.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L & Thaler, Richard H, 1986. "Fairness and the Assumptions of Economics," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 285-300, October.
    5. William Robert Nelson, 2001. "Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(4), pages 1180-1183, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Martijn J. van den Assem & Dennie van Dolder & Richard H. Thaler, 2012. "Split or Steal? Cooperative Behavior When the Stakes Are Large," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 2-20, January.
    2. Brandes, Leif & Franck, Egon, 2012. "Social preferences or personal career concerns? Field evidence on positive and negative reciprocity in the workplace," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 925-939.
    3. Daniel Schunk & Isabell Zipperle, 2023. "Fairness and inequality acceptance in children and adolescents: A survey on behaviors in economic experiments," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(5), pages 1715-1742, December.
    4. Declerck, Carolyn H. & Kiyonari, Toko & Boone, Christophe, 2009. "Why do responders reject unequal offers in the Ultimatum Game? An experimental study on the role of perceiving interdependence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 335-343, June.
    5. van Damme, Eric & Binmore, Kenneth G. & Roth, Alvin E. & Samuelson, Larry & Winter, Eyal & Bolton, Gary E. & Ockenfels, Axel & Dufwenberg, Martin & Kirchsteiger, Georg & Gneezy, Uri & Kocher, Martin G, 2014. "How Werner Güth's ultimatum game shaped our understanding of social behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 292-318.
    6. De Marco Giuseppe & Immordino Giovanni, 2014. "Reciprocity in the Principal–Multiple Agent Model," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 445-482, January.
    7. Bierbrauer, Felix & Netzer, Nick, 2016. "Mechanism design and intentions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 557-603.
    8. Schubert, Manuel & Graf Lambsdorff, Johann, 2012. "On the costs of kindness: An experimental investigation of guilty minds and negative reciprocity," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Volkswirtschaftliche Reihe V-64-12, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    9. Fischbacher, Urs & Utikal, Verena, 2013. "On the acceptance of apologies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 592-608.
    10. Strassmair, Christina, 2009. "Can intentions spoil the kindness of a gift? - An experimental study," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 302, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    11. Rosokha, Yaroslav & Lyu, Xinxin & Tverskoi, Denis & Gavrilets, Sergey, 2025. "Cooperation under the shadow of political inequality," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    12. Houser, Daniel & Xiao, Erte, 2010. "Inequality-seeking punishment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 20-23, October.
    13. Duersch, Peter & Müller, Julia, 2015. "Taking punishment into your own hands: An experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 1-11.
    14. Bruni, Luigino & Tufano, Fabio, 2017. "The value of vulnerability: The transformative capacity of risky trust," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(4), pages 408-414, July.
    15. Gerald Eisenkopf & Urs Fischbacher, 2015. "Naïve Responses to Kind Delegation," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(7), pages 487-498, October.
    16. Friehe, Tim & Utikal, Verena, 2018. "Intentions under cover – Hiding intentions is considered unfair," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 11-21.
    17. Stanca, Luca & Bruni, Luigino & Corazzini, Luca, 2009. "Testing theories of reciprocity: Do motivations matter?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 233-245, August.
    18. Aleksanyan, L.H. & Allahverdyan, A.E. & Bardakhchyan, V.G., 2025. "Ultimatum game: Regret or fairness?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    19. Weiwei Tasch & Daniel Houser, 2018. "Social Preferences and Social Curiosity," Working Papers 1067, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science.
    20. Du, Shaofu & Nie, Tengfei & Chu, Chengbin & Yu, Yugang, 2014. "Reciprocal supply chain with intention," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 389-402.

    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:plo:pone00:0031491. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.