↓ Skip to main content

Fairness requires deliberation: the primacy of economic over social considerations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Fairness requires deliberation: the primacy of economic over social considerations
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00747
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guy Hochman, Shahar Ayal, Dan Ariely

Abstract

While both economic and social considerations of fairness and equity play an important role in financial decision-making, it is not clear which of these two motives is more primal and immediate and which one is secondary and slow. Here we used variants of the ultimatum game to examine this question. Experiment 1 shows that acceptance rate of unfair offers increases when participants are asked to base their choice on their gut-feelings, as compared to when they thoroughly consider the available information. In line with these results, Experiments 2 and 3 provide process evidence that individuals prefer to first examine economic information about their own utility rather than social information about equity and fairness, even at the price of foregoing such social information. Our results suggest that people are more economically rational at the core, but social considerations (e.g., inequality aversion) require deliberation, which under certain conditions override their self-interested impulses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Hungary 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Unknown 56 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 31%
Student > Bachelor 10 17%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 10 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 37%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 7%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 June 2015.
All research outputs
#16,337,555
of 24,072,790 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,177
of 32,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,202
of 269,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#397
of 529 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,072,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,309 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,907 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 529 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.