Gordon-Hecker Tom, Rosensaft-Eshel Daniela, Pittarello Andrea, Shalvi Shaul, Bereby-Meyer Yoella
Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Organizational Psychology, Department of Organizational Psychology, University of Groningen.
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2017 Jun;146(6):771-775. doi: 10.1037/xge0000273. Epub 2017 Mar 9.
When allocating resources, equity and efficiency may conflict. When resources are scarce and cannot be distributed equally, one may choose to destroy resources and reduce societal welfare to maintain equity among its members. We examined whether people are averse to inequitable outcomes per se or to being responsible for deciding how inequity should be implemented. Three scenario-based experiments and one incentivized experiment revealed that participants are inequity responsibility averse: when asked to decide which of the 2 equally deserving individuals should receive a reward, they rather discarded the reward than choosing who will get it. This tendency diminished significantly when participants had the possibility to use a random device to allocate the reward. The finding suggests that it is more difficult to be responsible for the way inequity is implemented than to create inequity per se. (PsycINFO Database Record
在分配资源时，公平与效率可能会产生冲突。当资源稀缺且无法平均分配时，人们可能会选择破坏资源并降低社会福利，以维持其成员之间的公平。我们研究了人们是本身就厌恶不公平的结果，还是厌恶对如何实施不公平负责。三项基于情景的实验和一项激励实验表明，参与者厌恶不公平责任：当被要求决定两个同样应得奖励的人中哪一个应该获得奖励时，他们宁愿放弃奖励也不愿选择谁会得到它。当参与者有可能使用随机装置来分配奖励时，这种倾向显著降低。这一发现表明，对不公平的实施方式负责比制造不公平本身更困难。（《心理学文摘数据库记录》 ）
