当不平等对群体有利:公平的调节作用

Einav Hart, Paul K. Piff
{"title":"当不平等对群体有利:公平的调节作用","authors":"Einav Hart, Paul K. Piff","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3372685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many societies today are experiencing growing inequality in terms of wealth, income, health, education, resources or opportunities, trends that have negative effects upon well-being, trust, and motivation. We investigated whether inequalities –– particularly those perceived as fair –– can have positive effects upon individuals and groups. Using cross-national survey data (Study 1) and experimental data (Study 2), we find that inequalities arising from merit-based processes are perceived as fairer and as less acute. Further, in two experimental studies, using both monetary and real-effort social dilemmas, we demonstrate that inequalities perceived as procedurally fair can promote cooperation and trust. Participants received payments based on a fair (merit-based) or unfair (luck-based) process prior to being assigned to a group in which the other members’ payments were either equal or unequal to their own. We then measured positive contributions to the group via monetary contributions to a public good (Study 3) or a real-effort cooperation task (Study 4). Compared to conditions of equality, participants were more likely to cooperate when inequality of initial payments was perceived as fair, and less likely to contribute when inequality was perceived as unfair. We disentangle the effects of inequality and fairness on behavior, and underscore the importance of understanding how people construe the systems that give rise to inequality to an understanding of inequality’s effects on motivation and cooperation.","PeriodicalId":376768,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Psychology (Topic)","volume":"283 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When Inequality is Good for Groups: The Moderating Role of Fairness\",\"authors\":\"Einav Hart, Paul K. Piff\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3372685\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many societies today are experiencing growing inequality in terms of wealth, income, health, education, resources or opportunities, trends that have negative effects upon well-being, trust, and motivation. We investigated whether inequalities –– particularly those perceived as fair –– can have positive effects upon individuals and groups. Using cross-national survey data (Study 1) and experimental data (Study 2), we find that inequalities arising from merit-based processes are perceived as fairer and as less acute. Further, in two experimental studies, using both monetary and real-effort social dilemmas, we demonstrate that inequalities perceived as procedurally fair can promote cooperation and trust. Participants received payments based on a fair (merit-based) or unfair (luck-based) process prior to being assigned to a group in which the other members’ payments were either equal or unequal to their own. We then measured positive contributions to the group via monetary contributions to a public good (Study 3) or a real-effort cooperation task (Study 4). Compared to conditions of equality, participants were more likely to cooperate when inequality of initial payments was perceived as fair, and less likely to contribute when inequality was perceived as unfair. We disentangle the effects of inequality and fairness on behavior, and underscore the importance of understanding how people construe the systems that give rise to inequality to an understanding of inequality’s effects on motivation and cooperation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":376768,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CGN: Psychology (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"283 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-03-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CGN: Psychology (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3372685\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Psychology (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3372685","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

今天,许多社会在财富、收入、健康、教育、资源或机会方面的不平等日益加剧,这种趋势对福祉、信任和动力产生了负面影响。我们调查了不平等——尤其是那些被认为是公平的——是否会对个人和群体产生积极影响。使用跨国调查数据(研究1)和实验数据(研究2),我们发现,基于绩效的过程产生的不平等被认为是更公平的,不那么严重。此外,在两个使用货币和实际努力社会困境的实验研究中,我们证明了被视为程序公平的不平等可以促进合作和信任。参与者根据公平(基于成绩)或不公平(基于运气)的过程获得报酬,然后被分配到另一个小组,在这个小组中,其他成员的报酬要么相等,要么不相等。然后,我们通过对公共物品的货币贡献(研究3)或实际努力的合作任务(研究4)来衡量对群体的积极贡献。与平等条件相比,当初始支付的不平等被认为是公平的时,参与者更有可能合作,而当不平等被认为是不公平的时,参与者更不可能贡献。我们理清了不平等和公平对行为的影响,并强调了理解人们如何解释导致不平等的系统对理解不平等对动机和合作的影响的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
When Inequality is Good for Groups: The Moderating Role of Fairness
Many societies today are experiencing growing inequality in terms of wealth, income, health, education, resources or opportunities, trends that have negative effects upon well-being, trust, and motivation. We investigated whether inequalities –– particularly those perceived as fair –– can have positive effects upon individuals and groups. Using cross-national survey data (Study 1) and experimental data (Study 2), we find that inequalities arising from merit-based processes are perceived as fairer and as less acute. Further, in two experimental studies, using both monetary and real-effort social dilemmas, we demonstrate that inequalities perceived as procedurally fair can promote cooperation and trust. Participants received payments based on a fair (merit-based) or unfair (luck-based) process prior to being assigned to a group in which the other members’ payments were either equal or unequal to their own. We then measured positive contributions to the group via monetary contributions to a public good (Study 3) or a real-effort cooperation task (Study 4). Compared to conditions of equality, participants were more likely to cooperate when inequality of initial payments was perceived as fair, and less likely to contribute when inequality was perceived as unfair. We disentangle the effects of inequality and fairness on behavior, and underscore the importance of understanding how people construe the systems that give rise to inequality to an understanding of inequality’s effects on motivation and cooperation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Managerial Overconfidence and Self-Reported Success How to Talk Down Your Stock Performance Director Overconfidence Mergers and the Market for Busy Directors: An International Analysis When Inequality is Good for Groups: The Moderating Role of Fairness
×
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