Record Details

Quantification of fairness bias in relation to decisions using a relativistic fairness-equity model

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal

View Archive Info
 
 
Field Value
 
Title Quantification of fairness bias in relation to decisions using a relativistic fairness-equity model
 
Creator Tam, Nicoladie; Dept. of Biological Sciences
University of North Texas
Denton, Texas 76203
 
Subject Psychology; behavioral science; social science
Fairness bias; equity; egalitarianism, monetary gain; ultimatum game; decision
behavioral psychology; social psychology
 
Description This study quantifies the fairness bias in relation to decision by a stimulus-response function using a relativistic fairness-equity model.  The interrelationship between fairness and decision is quantified by using an Ultimatum Game (UG) experimental paradigm, in which an amount of money is shared between two parties, while the human subjects are asked to accept or reject the share.  The results showed that the fairness perception is shifted upward (toward a higher positive fairness baseline in the y-intercept of the stimulus-response function) for acceptance trials, without changing the slope (which corresponds to the fairness sensitivity).  On the other hand, the fairness perception is shifted downward (toward a negative fairness baseline in the y-intercept) for the rejection trials.  The analysis also showed that the fairness crossover point is shifted to the left for the acceptance trials, while the fairness crossover point is shifted to the right for the rejection trials.  This suggests that human subjects were more lenient to fairness when they considered slightly inequitable offers as fair in their decision to accept the offers (quantified by the fairness crossover point being shifted to the left for the acceptance trials).  On the other hand, it suggests that they were greedy when they considered hyper-equitable offers as unfair (quantified by the fairness crossover point being shifted to the right for the rejection trials).  The analysis also showed that there is a singularity point, in which the most equitable offer (even-split) is always considered as the fairest, even when they rejected the offers.  This absolute equity is rated as the fairest (even fairer than any of the hyper-equitable offers) independent of whether the subjects decided to accept or reject the offers.  These results suggested that when human subjects decided to accept or reject the offer, they included both self-regarding and other-regarding concerns, by using both self-centered and other-centered frames of reference in assessing fairness.  The inclusiveness of both parties in the fairness consideration provides an optimal solution to maximize the gains for both parties at the most equitable offer (even-split) without creating conflict-of-interest.  The changes in fairness perception are quantified by the shifting of the stimulus-response curve up/down (changing the fairness baseline) or left/right (changing the fairness leniency), without changing the slope (the fairness sensitivity), when the decision is made to accept or reject the offers.
 
Publisher Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal
 
Contributor Ms. Krista Smith for proofreading the manuscript
 
Date 2014-07-28
 
Type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Peer-reviewed Article
 
Format application/pdf
 
Identifier http://www.scholarpublishing.org/index.php/ASSRJ/article/view/292
10.14738/assrj.14.292
 
Source Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal; Vol 1, No 4 (2014): Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal; 169-178
10.14738/assrj.14.2014
 
Language eng
 
Relation http://www.scholarpublishing.org/index.php/ASSRJ/article/view/292/170
 
Rights Authors wishing to include figures, tables, or text passages that have already been published elsewhere are required to obtain permission from the copyright owner(s) for both the print and online format and to include evidence that such permission has been granted when submitting their papers. Any material received without such evidence will be assumed to originate from the authors.All authors of manuscripts accepted for publication in the journal Transactions on Networks and Communications are required to license the Scholar Publishing to publish the manuscript. Each author should sign one of the following forms, as appropriate:License to publish; to be used by most authors. This grants the publisher a license of copyright.  Download forms (MS Word formats)  -  (doc)Publication agreement — Crown copyright; to be used by authors who are public servants in a Commonwealth country, such as Canada, U.K., Australia.  Download forms (Adobe or MS Word formats) -  (doc)License to publish — U.S. official; to be used by authors who are officials of the U.S. government.  Download forms (Adobe or MS Word formats) – (doc)The preferred method to submit a completed, signed copyright form is to upload it within the task assigned to you in the Manuscript submission system, after the submission of your manuscript. Alternatively, you can submit it by email copyright@scholarpublishing.org