Literature DB >> 26075794

Waste management: how reducing partiality can promote efficient resource allocation.

Shoham Choshen-Hillel1, Alex Shaw1, Eugene M Caruso1.   

Abstract

Two central principles that guide resource-allocation decisions are equity (providing equal pay for equal work) and efficiency (not wasting resources). When these two principles conflict with one another, people will often waste resources to avoid inequity. We suggest that people wish to avoid inequity not because they find it inherently unfair, but because they want to avoid the appearance of partiality associated with it. We explore one way to reduce waste by reducing the perceived partiality of inequitable allocations. Specifically, we hypothesize that people will be more likely to favor an efficient (albeit inequitable) allocation if it puts them in a disadvantaged position than if it puts others in a disadvantaged position. To test this hypothesis, we asked participants to choose between giving some extra resource to one person (thereby creating inequity between this person and equally deserving others) and not giving the resource to anyone (thereby wasting the resource). Six studies, using realistic scenarios and behavioral paradigms, provide robust evidence for a self-disadvantaging effect: Allocators were consistently more likely to create inequity to avoid wasting resources when the resulting inequity would put them at a relative disadvantage than when it would put others at a relative disadvantage. We further find that this self-disadvantaging effect is a direct result of people's concern about appearing partial. Our findings suggest the importance of impartiality even in distributive justice, thereby bridging a gap between the distributive and procedural justice literatures. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26075794     DOI: 10.1037/pspa0000028

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol        ISSN: 0022-3514


  5 in total

1.  When fairness matters less than we expect.

Authors:  Gus Cooney; Daniel T Gilbert; Timothy D Wilson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-09-16       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  The Development of a Preference for Procedural Justice for Self and Others.

Authors:  Yarrow Dunham; Allison Durkin; Tom R Tyler
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-12-10       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  A quantitative method for benchmarking fair income distribution.

Authors:  Thitithep Sitthiyot; Kanyarat Holasut
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2022-09-03

4.  Racial Ingroup Bias and Efficiency Consideration Influence Distributive Decisions: A Dynamic Analysis of Time Domain and Time Frequency.

Authors:  Jiaxin Yu; Yan Wang; Jianling Yu; Jianmin Zeng
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2021-05-10       Impact factor: 4.677

5.  The costs of being consequentialist: Social inference from instrumental harm and impartial beneficence.

Authors:  Jim A C Everett; Nadira S Faber; Julian Savulescu; Molly J Crockett
Journal:  J Exp Soc Psychol       Date:  2018-11
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.