What`s Fairness Ideals? (2)

Natsuka TOKUMARU & Sobei H. ODA
(Kyoto Sangyo University, Japan)
ESAM 2012, Melbourn
 Introduction:
What’s Fairness Ideals?
 Flexibility Approach: Dress-up Models
 Experimental Design
 Results
 Summary
 (Hoffman
et al 1985; Cappelen et al 2007)’s
experiment: Dictator Game with Production
Production
Stage
 Several
1.
2.
3.
4.
Team Earnings
Distribution
Stage
Fairness Ideals in distribution:
Egalitarian (Inequity Aversion)
Liberalist (According to individual’s earnings)
Utilitarian (homo economics)
(Liberal Egalitarian)
 Egalitarian
(inequity aversion)
 yi = (π1 + π2)/2
π2
Earning
Earning
π1
Π
2
Π = π1 + π2
Distribution
Distribution
Earning
Liberalist
 yi = πi

π1
Earning
π2
Π = π1 + π2
Distribution
Distribution
Earning
 Utilitarian
 yi
π1
= π1 + π 2
π2
Π
Earning
Π = π1 + π2
Distribution
Distribution
 Our
Research Questions:
Q1:Are people’s Fairness Ideals
fixed one or flexible according
to situations?
Q2: If they are flexible, which
factor is more important when
one select a specific fairness
ideal?
 Previous
Models: Type Classification
Egalitarian
Liberalist
Subjects
Utilitarian
 Dress-Up
Models: Flexibility Approach
Ring
Winner
Loser
 In
mathematical settings, we presupposed
that individuals increase/decrease their
utility by each fairness ideals
 Each Individual’s Value Function:
____________ ________
Egalitarian
Liberalist
___
Utilitarian
 Subjects:
100 undergraduates of Kyoto
Sangyo University (all faculties).
 Subjects were divided into two groups:
1) Lotto Game;
2) SPI test Game
 Randomly
pair-matched (2 players game)
 Consisting of
1) Production stage 2) Distribution Stage
Production stage
Investment
• ai [0, 100,
200, 300]
 Lotto:
Lotto or
SPI test
•Result qi (2
or 4) [πi= aiqi]
Team
Income
• Π=a1q1 +
a2q2
50% subjects randomly get 2; the rest of
50 % get 4
 SPI test: 30 questions inner 15 min→scored
→top 50% gets 4; bottom 50% gets 2
Distribution stage:
 Each subjects was informed
1) his and his pair’s investments (0, 100, 200, 300)
2) his and pair’s game result (2 or 4)
3) his and pair’s earnings (0 ~ 1200)
4) team earnings (0 ~ 2400)
 Then
asked to give a distribution proposal which
divides team earnings with his pair
 One of two proposals was randomly selected
→final income
 Lotto
and SPI test: not significant difference
 Disconfirmation of previous researches ※?
→SPI test conditions may matter:
1) Test interval was too short (15 min)
2) Comparative assessment (50% high; 50% low)
3) Ability homogeneity (SPI ≒ Entrance Exam )
SPI test might be regarded as a
problem of ‘luck’ rather than ability
※(Cherry et al 2002; Schurte et al 2009)
 We
find significant difference in subject’s
relative earning compared with his pair
 If relative earning is higher, subjects prefer
liberalist distribution[p=0.0?]
π1
π1
Π
π2
Production
Team
Earning
Distribution
 If
relative earning is lower, subjects prefer
egalitarian distribution [p=0.0?]
π2
Π
Production
Team
Earning
Distribution
 Offer
Rate by relative Earning
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0-offer
0<y<0.5
Lower
Half-offer
Higher
0.5<y<1
____________
Egalitarian
________
Liberalist
___
Utilitarian
 By
performing distribution experiment with
production, we examined whether subject’s
fairness ideals change by situations
 We couldn’t find significant difference in
Lotto and SPI test treatment, but this stems
from the test conditions
 We found that subjects’ fairness ideals
significantly differ by relative earnings
 Subjects,
whose relative earning is
higher tend to select liberalist ideals
 Subjects, whose relative earnings is
lower tend to select egalitarian ideals
 Fairness ideals are not fixed inner each
individuals, but flexible depending on
each situation they are in

Download Report