IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/doi10.1086-705549.html

When Fair Isn’t Fair: Understanding Choice Reversals Involving Social Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • James Andreoni
  • Deniz Aydin
  • Blake Barton
  • B. Douglas Bernheim
  • Jeffrey Naecker

Abstract

In settings with uncertainty, tension exists between ex ante and ex post notions of fairness. Subjects in an experiment most commonly select the ex ante fair alternative ex ante and switch to the ex post fair alternative ex post. One potential explanation embraces consequentialism and construes reversals as time inconsistent. Another abandons consequentialism in favor of deontological (rule-based) ethics and thereby avoids the implication that revisions imply inconsistency. We test these explanations by examining contingent planning and the demand for commitment. Our findings suggest that the most common attitude toward fairness involves a time-consistent preference for applying a naive deontological heuristic.

Suggested Citation

  • James Andreoni & Deniz Aydin & Blake Barton & B. Douglas Bernheim & Jeffrey Naecker, 2020. "When Fair Isn’t Fair: Understanding Choice Reversals Involving Social Preferences," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(5), pages 1673-1711.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jpolec:doi:10.1086/705549
    DOI: 10.1086/705549
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/705549
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/705549
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/705549?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Erik Schokkaert & Benoît Tarroux, 2021. "Empirical research on ethical preferences: how popular is prioritarianism?," Working Papers halshs-03110312, HAL.
    2. Arthur E. Attema & Olivier L’Haridon & Gijs Kuilen, 2023. "An experimental investigation of social risk preferences for health," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(3), pages 379-403, October.
    3. Ranveig Falch, 2021. "How Do People Trade Off Resources Between Quick and Slow Learners?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics 2021_04, Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics.
    4. Korpela, Ville & Lombardi, Michele & Saulle, Riccardo D., 2024. "Designing rotation programs: Limits and possibilities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 77-102.
    5. Andreoni, James & Serra-Garcia, Marta, 2021. "Time inconsistent charitable giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    6. James Berry & Rebecca Dizon-Ross & Maulik Jagnani, 2020. "Not Playing Favorites: An Experiment on Parental Fairness Preferences," Working Papers 2020-06, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    7. Lu, Kelin, 2025. "Silver spoons and scales of justice: The fairness preference over unequal intergenerational wealth transfers between Americans and Chinese," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    8. Sandro Ambuehl & B. Douglas Bernheim & Tony Q. Fan & Zachary Freitas-Groff, 2025. "Interventionist Preferences and the Welfare State: The Case of In-Kind Aid," NBER Working Papers 33688, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Duell, Dominik & Valasek, Justin, 2019. "Political polarization and selection in representative democracies," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 168, pages 132-165.
    10. Yiting Chen & Songfa Zhong, 2025. "People Are More Moral in Uncertain Environments," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 93(2), pages 439-462, March.
    11. Nguyen, Cuong Viet, 2019. "The effect of inequality in stakes on sharing behavior: Evidence from an experimental study," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    12. Peter Andre, 2021. "Shallow Meritocracy: An Experiment on Fairness Views," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2021_318v1, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    13. Serhiy Kandul & Olexandr Nikolaychuk, 2023. "I win it’s fair, you win it’s not. Selective heeding of merit in ambiguous settings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(1), pages 1-11, January.
    14. Sandro Ambuehl & B. Douglas Bernheim, 2021. "Social preferences over ordinal outcomes," ECON - Working Papers 395, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Dec 2024.
    15. Guilherme Lichand & Juliette Thibaud, 2020. "Parent-bias," ECON - Working Papers 369, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Jun 2022.
    16. Sandro Ambuehl & B. Douglas Bernheim, 2021. "Interpreting the Will of the People: A Positive Analysis of Ordinal Preference Aggregation," NBER Working Papers 29389, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Gago, Andrés, 2021. "Reciprocity and uncertainty: When do people forgive?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement

    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:ucp:jpolec:doi:10.1086/705549. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JPE .

    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.