Subtractive versus Ratio Model of "Fair" Allocation: Can the Group Level Analyses Be Misleading?

Two models of equity judgments are ratio and subtraction. Proponents of the former assume a linear relationship between the subjective feelings of equity and their overt expressions; those of the latter assume a monotonic relationship. Consequently, the ratio and subtractive rules are tested with the raw and monotonically rescaled data, respectively. I evaluated these two approaches with managers and students from India. Experiment 1 varied merit and pay of two persons and obtained judgments of difference between unfairness to them. Experiments 2 and 3 manipulated two inputs of two persons and studied "fair" reward for them. I analyzed both the raw and rescaled data at the group and individual levels. The group analyses supported the ratio model; the individual analyses showed that majority was consistent with the subtractive model. Discrepant results from these analyses were due to individual differences in the models employed and use of the response scale. Implications of the findings are discussed for cross-cultural and developmental research in "fair" allocation.