Competing fairness ideals underlie wealth inequality across decision contexts.

Wealth inequality is one of the most profound challenges confronting society today. However, an important issue in addressing inequality lies in formalizing the diversity of individual perspectives regarding what constitutes a fair distribution of resources. We tackle this topic by simulating wealth inequality through the allocation of bonus endowments in both Dictator Game (DG) and Ultimatum Game (UG) settings and capturing distributive decisions. By integrating a computational model, we quantify individual differences in the interplay between financial self-interest and competing pro-social motivations that emerge in the context of pre-existing wealth inequity. Our behavioral results show that, on average, pre-existing wealth influences distributive preferences across both allocations and proposals. Yet, inequality elicits non-uniform fairness concerns. Using a hierarchical clustering approach, we objectively categorise participants' behavior elucidating four distinct decision strategies: 'Pro-Self', 'Table Egalitarianism', 'Total Egalitarianism', and 'Moral Opportunism'. A balanced distribution of strategies is observed during allocations (DG), whereas Table Egalitarianism prevails in strategic proposals (UG), highlighting the influence of strategic considerations on decision strategy. Furthermore, we demonstrate an association between strategies across decision contexts. Our findings thus contribute a principled framework to formalize distributive preferences, revealing that, with respect to both altruistic allocations and strategic proposals, competing ideals of fairness underlie distributive preferences under wealth inequality.