Sharing losses and sharing gains: Increased demand for fairness under adversity

Zhou, Xiaolin; Wu, Yan

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.017

“…These results are in line with those from Zhou and Wu (2011), who study conditional rejection rates using deception. They report that rejections in the loss domain are more frequent than in the gain domain, for equivalent unfair offers.…”

Section: Rejection Ratessupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Finally, a recent neural study from Guo et al (2013) implements Zhou and Wu (2011) design to study brain responses to unfairness in gains and loss contexts. In this vein, the generosity effect we describe in this paper may open an intriguing avenue for new research to study both proposers and dictators' brain areas in response to increased social punishment in the loss domain.…”

Section: Conclusion and Suggestions For Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We located three UG studies on sharing losses: Buchan, Croson, Johnson and Wu (2005), Lusk and Hudson (2010) and Zhou and Wu (2011). 6 Lusk and Hudson (2010) find more aggressive proposers in loss situations compared to gain situations in a between-subject design, while Buchan et al (2005) find the opposite in a 4 See IMF, World Economic Outlook (April 2012), OECD, Entrepreneurship at a Glance (2011, p. 87), ILO World of Work Report (2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 within-subject design. Zhou and Wu (2011) do not focus on proposers. Instead, they implement both within-and between-subject designs, using deception, to study how responders reject or accept gain and loss offers generated by the experimenter.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Generosity Effect: Fairness in Sharing Gains and Losses

Baquero

¹

,

Smit

²

,

Wathieu

³

2013

SSRN Journal

1

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explore the interaction between fairness attitudes and reference dependence both theoretically and experimentally. Our theory of fairness behavior under reference-dependent preferences in the context of ultimatum games, defines fairness in the utility domain and not in the domain of dollar payments. We test our model predictions using a within-subject design with ultimatum and dictator games involving gains and losses of varying amounts. Proposers indicated their offer in gain-and (neatly comparable) loss-games; responders indicated minimum acceptable gain and maximum acceptable loss. We find a significant "generosity effect" in the loss domain: on average, proposers bear the largest share of losses as if anticipating responders' call for a smaller share. In contrast, reference dependence hardly affects the outcome of dictator games -where responders have no veto right-though we detect a small but significant "compassion effect", whereby dictators are on average somewhat more generous sharing losses than sharing gains.

show abstract

“…We located three UG studies on sharing losses: Buchan, Croson, Johnson and Wu (2005), Lusk and Hudson (2010) and Zhou and Wu (2011). 6 Lusk and Hudson (2010) find more aggressive proposers in loss situations compared to gain situations in a between-subject design, while Buchan et al (2005) find the opposite in a 4 See IMF, World Economic Outlook (April 2012), OECD, Entrepreneurship at a Glance (2011, p. 87), ILO World of Work Report (2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Generosity Effect: Fairness in Sharing Gains and Losses

Baquero

¹

,

Smit

²

,

Wathieu

³

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explore the interaction between fairness attitudes and reference dependence both theoretically and experimentally. Our theory of fairness behavior under reference-dependent preferences in the context of ultimatum games, defines fairness in the utility domain and not in the domain of dollar payments. We test our model predictions using a within-subject design with ultimatum and dictator games involving gains and losses of varying amounts. Proposers indicated their offer in gain-and (neatly comparable) loss-games; responders indicated minimum acceptable gain and maximum acceptable loss. We find a significant "generosity effect" in the loss domain: on average, proposers bear the largest share of losses as if anticipating responders' call for a smaller share. In contrast, reference dependence hardly affects the outcome of dictator games -where responders have no veto right-though we detect a small but significant "compassion effect", whereby dictators are on average somewhat more generous sharing losses than sharing gains.

show abstract

Losing the lottery of life: Examining intuitions of desert toward the socially and genetically “unlucky” in criminal punishment contexts

Berryessa

¹

2022

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research presents three experiments that examine how natural "luck" (social and genetic luck) may affect lay intuitions toward desert-based criminal punishment. Study 1 examined if intuitions surrounding desert-based rewards in relation to good qualities/advantages ascribed to natural luck would extend to desert-based punishments in relation to bad qualities/disadvantages ascribed to natural luck. Study 2 examined how both social and genetic luck affect support for desert-based punishment across different criminal offenses and tests the relevance of immanent justice reasoning to such support. Study 3 examined whether findings in the prior studies are specific to desert-based punishment and immanent justice reasoning, or if natural luck elicits broader punishment judgments and types of justice reasoning. Results showed that known intuitions surrounding desert-based rewards do extend to desertbased punishments in instances of natural luck. Immanent justice reasoning was strongly associated with support for desert-based punishment in instances of both social and genetic luck. However, genetic luck, as compared to social luck, significantly increased support for desert-based punishment, with imminent justice reasoning mediating this increased support. Implications are discussed in relation to capital sentencing and better understanding lay intuitions toward the punishment of criminal offenders who may have qualities ascribed to the "natural lottery."

show abstract

Sharing losses and sharing gains: Increased demand for fairness under adversity

Cited by 81 publications

References 26 publications

The Generosity Effect: Fairness in Sharing Gains and Losses

The Generosity Effect: Fairness in Sharing Gains and Losses

The Generosity Effect: Fairness in Sharing Gains and Losses

Losing the lottery of life: Examining intuitions of desert toward the socially and genetically “unlucky” in criminal punishment contexts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About