Fairness overrides reputation: the importance of fairness considerations in altruistic cooperation

Abstract

Behavioral findings in several strategic games indicate that people punish others if they think they are being treated unequally, even at the cost of minimizing their own material payoff. We investigated the primary driving force behind such non-self-regarding behavior, so-called, altruistic cooperation. In all of our studies, a mini ultimatum game was played either one-shot (in Experiment 1a and 1b) or repeatedly (Experiment 2), and rejections of inequitable distribution were taken as a measure of altruistic cooperation. In Experiment 1a, we replicated previous findings indicating that the key mechanism contributing to the emergence of altruistic cooperation is fairness considerations. In Experiment 1b, we delved into the relative importance of two aspects of fairness considerations (i.e., outcome fairness and intentions) and showed that both aspects were effective in determining the level of altruistic cooperation, with the contribution of intentions being more important. In Experiment 2, we investigated the effect of the opportunity for reputation building and future interaction on altruistic cooperation. We found that these factors became influential only when fairness considerations were weakened, particularly, as a result of the removal of the possible intentions behind an offer.

<p>Sleep Deprivation Impairs Cooperative Behavior Selectively: Evidence from Prisoner’s and Chicken Dilemmas</p>

“…Prior studies revealed that cooperation relies on reputation or potential future interactions, as well as propensity toward risk. 7,8 Recent studies applied two-person prisoner's games with gambles and found that risk-seeking had a positive correlation with cooperation, 9,10 which is contradictory to earlier research suggesting no relationship between cooperation and risk preference. 11 In addition, the relationship between risk-seeking and cooperation may be more influential in the CD than in the PD.…”

Trust: An Integrative Review from a Person–Situation Perspective

“…Van Lange, Van Vugt, Meertens, & Ruiter, 1998;Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994;Yamagishi, 1988). Most basically, cooperation is reducible to trait fairness (e.g., Arneson, 1982;Eek & Biel, 2003;Fehr & Schmidt, 1999;Güney & Newell, 2013;Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1986;Rabin, 1993;Wilke, 1991), which represents an individual's willingness to share or give rather than to exploit others, even if there is no particular incentive to do so. 10 Honesty, in contrast, describes the degree to which one can rely on the word or promise of an individual (cf.…”

Fairness and Inequity Aversion

“…For example, people's reactions to inequitable outcomes are influenced by the intentions of those responsible for determining the outcomes (Blount, 1995;Falk, Fehr, & Fischbacher, 2003Guney & Newell, 2013). For example, people's reactions to inequitable outcomes are influenced by the intentions of those responsible for determining the outcomes (Blount, 1995;Falk, Fehr, & Fischbacher, 2003Guney & Newell, 2013).…”