Rank Reversal Aversion and Fairness in Hierarchies

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2022-10-28 DOI:10.1007/s40750-022-00206-7
Alexandre Foncelle, Elodie Barat, Jean-Claude Dreher, Jean-Baptiste Van der Henst
{"title":"Rank Reversal Aversion and Fairness in Hierarchies","authors":"Alexandre Foncelle,&nbsp;Elodie Barat,&nbsp;Jean-Claude Dreher,&nbsp;Jean-Baptiste Van der Henst","doi":"10.1007/s40750-022-00206-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>Despite the aversion to inequality in humans, social hierarchies are a fundamental feature of their social life. Several mechanisms help explain the prevalence of hierarchies over egalitarianism. Recent work has suggested that while people tend to reduce resource inequalities when given the opportunity, they are reluctant to do so when it results in a reversal of social ranks (Xie et al., 2017). In this study, we explore how the way in which hierarchies are established influences this mechanism. We propose that aversion to rank reversal depends on whether rank asymmetry is fair or unfair.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>In an online study, participants read 12 vignettes depicting six hypothetical hierarchies that varied in fairness. In each vignette, one individual was endowed with more resources than another individual, and participants could reduce that inequality by transferring resources from the higher-ranked individual to the lower-ranked one. In half of the vignettes, reducing the inequality led to a reversal of ranks, while in the other half it did not.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>We observed that participants were more likely to reverse ranks and reduce inequality when the hierarchy was perceived as unfair.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Overall, our results suggest that considerations of fairness guide participants’ in their decision to reverse ranks.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40750-022-00206-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objectives

Despite the aversion to inequality in humans, social hierarchies are a fundamental feature of their social life. Several mechanisms help explain the prevalence of hierarchies over egalitarianism. Recent work has suggested that while people tend to reduce resource inequalities when given the opportunity, they are reluctant to do so when it results in a reversal of social ranks (Xie et al., 2017). In this study, we explore how the way in which hierarchies are established influences this mechanism. We propose that aversion to rank reversal depends on whether rank asymmetry is fair or unfair.

Methods

In an online study, participants read 12 vignettes depicting six hypothetical hierarchies that varied in fairness. In each vignette, one individual was endowed with more resources than another individual, and participants could reduce that inequality by transferring resources from the higher-ranked individual to the lower-ranked one. In half of the vignettes, reducing the inequality led to a reversal of ranks, while in the other half it did not.

Results

We observed that participants were more likely to reverse ranks and reduce inequality when the hierarchy was perceived as unfair.

Conclusion

Overall, our results suggest that considerations of fairness guide participants’ in their decision to reverse ranks.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
等级反转厌恶与等级公平
目的尽管人类厌恶不平等,但社会等级制度是他们社会生活的一个基本特征。一些机制有助于解释等级制度相对于平等主义的普遍性。最近的研究表明,尽管人们在有机会时倾向于减少资源不平等,但当这导致社会地位逆转时,他们不愿意这样做(Xie et al.,2017)。在这项研究中,我们探讨了等级制度的建立方式如何影响这一机制。我们提出,对等级反转的厌恶取决于等级不对称是公平的还是不公平的。方法在一项在线研究中,参与者阅读了12个小插曲,描绘了六个公平性不同的假设等级。在每个小插曲中,一个人比另一个人拥有更多的资源,参与者可以通过将资源从排名较高的个人转移到排名较低的个人来减少这种不平等。在一半的小插曲中,减少不平等导致了排名的逆转,而在另一半则没有。结果我们观察到,当等级制度被认为不公平时,参与者更有可能颠倒排名,减少不平等。结论总体而言,我们的研究结果表明,公平的考虑指导了参与者的排名逆转决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
The change process questionnaire (CPQ): A psychometric validation. Differential Costs of Raising Grandchildren on Older Mother-Adult Child Relations in Black and White Families. Does Resilience Mediate the Relationship Between Negative Self-Image and Psychological Distress in Middle-Aged and Older Gay and Bisexual Men? Intergenerational Relations and Well-being Among Older Middle Eastern/Arab American Immigrants During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Caregiving Appraisals and Emotional Valence: Moderating Effects of Activity Participation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1