Prosocials prefer equal outcomes to maximizing joint outcomes

Abstract

Existing theories of social value orientations posit that prosocials maximize joint outcomes whereas proselfs maximize outcomes to themselves. Three studies employing a total of 157 undergraduates were conducted to test the alternative hypothesis that prosocials prefer equal outcomes to maximizing joint outcome. In study 1 participants completed the Triple-Dominance Measure of Social Values in which a fourth alternative that distributed the largest joint outcome unequally was added to the alternative that distributed the outcomes equally. In accordance with the hypothesis, prosocials preferred the equal-outcome alternative to the joint-outcome alternative. Study 2 confirmed and extended these results by demonstrating that prosocials preferred equal outcomes to larger joint outcomes that were unequally distributed but provided both with larger outcomes. Study 3 demonstrated that in a modified prisoner's dilemma game, a preference for equal outcomes to a larger joint outcome resulted in that prosocials cooperated when they believed or knew that the other cooperated, and defected when they believed or knew that the other defected.

Regulatory focus and interdependent economic decision-making

“…Consistent with previous research (e.g., Eek & Garling, 2006), most participants (183/184 = 99%) exhibited equality, joint gain, relative gain or self gain (Table 2); only one exhibited altruism and was excluded from the analyses.…”

“…Interdependence orientations have been investigated across domains -including social dilemmas (e.g., Messick & McClintock, 1968), intergroup relations (e.g., Tajfel, Billing, Bundy, & Flament, 1971), and negotiations (e.g., De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995). This research reveals that four orientations are typically exhibited (Bornstein et al, 1983;Brewer & Silver, 1978;Eek & Garling, 2006;Knight & Dubro, 1984;Tajfel et al, 1971;Van Lange, 1999): equality (i.e., to minimize differences in outcomes), joint gain (i.e., to maximize total value for both parties), relative gain (i.e., to maximize own outcome over other party), and self gain (i.e., to maximize own outcome). Although these orientations are usually Regulatory Focus and Economic Interdependence 9 classified as prosocial (equality, joint gain) or proself (relative gain, self gain), they can also be classified as focusing on outcomes that are relative (relative gain, equality) or absolute (self gain, joint gain; see Table 1).…”

“…Although classical theories of self-interest (e.g., Hamner & Harnett, 1975;Mill, 1874Mill, /1968Siegel & Fouraker, Regulatory Focus and Economic Interdependence 5 1960) argue that individuals are primarily concerned with maximizing their own (and at times others') absolute outcomes, psychological and sociological research has consistently demonstrated that individuals also consider relative outcomes in interdependent decisions like the one above. For example, individuals strongly reject negative relative outcomes (Loewenstein et al, 1989;Crosby, 1976;Guth, Schmittberger, & Schwarze, 1982;Stouffer et al, 1949) and try to establish relative advantage (Messick & McClintock, 1968;Eek & Garling, 2006;Knight & Dubro, 1984;Snidal, 1991;Waltz, 1979). Psychological theories including social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954;Suls & Wheeler, 2000), social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986;Turner, 1975; see also Scheepers, Spears, Doosje, & Manstead, 2006), and equity theory (Adams, 1965) tend to converge on a common explanation that relative outcomes provide value via social status (i.e., a perception that one is better, more important, and more valuable than others).…”

The egocentric nature of procedural justice: Social value orientation as moderator of reactions to decision-making procedures

“…This is evidenced, for instance, by findings that procedural justice stimulates cooperative behavior in social dilemmas (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005;Tyler & Degoey, 1995). These strivings for fair (and particularly equal) outcomes and harmonious interpersonal relationships reflect behavioral patterns that are commonly associated with prosocials, and less so with proselfs (De Cremer & Van Lange, 2001;Eek & Gärling, 2006;Van Beest, Van Dijk, & Wilke, 2003;Van Lange, 1999). Based…”

Rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is no evidence of strong reciprocity

“…Similarly, the rUG is predicted to be positively correlated with the tTG because the trusting choice in the TG increases the total amount of money that will be shared between the two players. Finally, the level of cPDG that a player exhibits, especially in the one-shot version of the game, is known to be correlated with the prosocial preference (23) that includes a preference for the fair distribution of outcomes (24). Thus, according to the strong reciprocity interpretation of the rUG, the rUG is predicted to be positively correlated with cPDG.…”