Quantification of fairness bias in relation to decisions using a relativistic fairness-equity model

PDF Version Also Available for Download.

Description

Article discussing the quantification of fairness bias in relation to decisions using a relativistic fairness equity-model.

Physical Description

10 p.

Creation Information

Tam, Nicoladie D. July 10, 2014.

Context

This article is part of the collection entitled: UNT Scholarly Works and was provided by UNT College of Arts and Sciences to Digital Library, a digital repository hosted by the UNT Libraries. It has been viewed 17 times . More information about this article can be viewed below.

Who

People and organizations associated with either the creation of this article or its content.

Author

Publisher

Provided By

UNT College of Arts and Sciences

The UNT College of Arts and Sciences educates students in traditional liberal arts, performing arts, sciences, professional, and technical academic programs. In addition to its departments, the college includes academic centers, institutes, programs, and offices providing diverse courses of study.

Contact Us

What

Descriptive information to help identify this article. Follow the links below to find similar items on the Digital Library.

Degree Information

Description

Article discussing the quantification of fairness bias in relation to decisions using a relativistic fairness equity-model.

Physical Description

10 p.

Notes

Abstract: This study quantifies the fairness bias in relation to decision by a stimulus-response function using a relativistic fairness-equity model. The interrelationship between fairness and decision is quantified by using an Ultimatum Game (UG) experimental paradigm, in which an amount of money is shared between two parties, while the human subjects are asked to accept or reject the share. The results showed that the fairness perception is shifted upward (toward a higher positive fairness baseline in the y-intercept of the stimulus-response function) for acceptance trials, without changing the slope (which corresponds to the fairness sensitivity). On the other hand, the fairness perception is shifted downward (toward a negative fairness baseline in the y-intercept) for the rejection trials. The analysis also showed that the fairness crossover point is shifted to the left for the acceptance trials, while the fairness crossover point is shifted to the right for the rejection trials. This suggests that human subjects were more lenient to fairness when they considered slightly inequitable offers as fair in their decision to accept the offers (quantified by the fairness crossover point being shifted to the left for the acceptance trials). On the other hand, it suggests that they were greedy when they considered hyper-equitable offers as unfair (quantified by the fairness crossover point being shifted to the right for the rejection trials). The analysis also showed that there is a singularity point, in which the most equitable offer (even-split) is always considered as the fairest, even when they rejected the offers. This absolute equity is rated as the fairest (even fairer than any of the hyper-equitable offers) independent of whether the subjects decided to accept or reject the offers. These results suggested that when human subjects decided to accept or reject the offer, they included both self-regarding and other-regarding concerns, by using both self-centered and other-centered frames of reference in assessing fairness. The inclusiveness of both parties in the fairness consideration provides an optimal solution to maximize the gains for both parties at the most equitable offer (even-split) without creating conflict-of-interest. The changes in fairness perception are quantified by the shifting of the stimulus-response curve up/down (changing the fairness baseline) or left/right (changing the fairness leniency), without changing the slope (the fairness sensitivity), when the decision is made to accept or reject the offers.

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal; Copyright © Society for Science and Education, United Kingdom. http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.14.292

Source

  • Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 2014, Manchester: Society for Science and Education, pp. 169-178

Language

Item Type

Identifier

Unique identifying numbers for this article in the Digital Library or other systems.

Publication Information

  • Publication Title: Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal
  • Volume: 1
  • Issue: 4
  • Page Start: 169
  • Page End: 178
  • Pages: 10
  • Peer Reviewed: Yes

Collections

This article is part of the following collection of related materials.

UNT Scholarly Works

Materials from the UNT community's research, creative, and scholarly activities and UNT's Open Access Repository. Access to some items in this collection may be restricted.

What responsibilities do I have when using this article?

When

Dates and time periods associated with this article.

Creation Date

  • July 10, 2014

Added to The UNT Digital Library

  • July 9, 2015, 6:19 a.m.

Description Last Updated

  • July 13, 2015, 2:31 p.m.

Usage Statistics

When was this article last used?

Yesterday: 0
Past 30 days: 3
Total Uses: 17

Interact With This Article

Here are some suggestions for what to do next.

Start Reading

PDF Version Also Available for Download.

Citations, Rights, Re-Use

Tam, Nicoladie D. Quantification of fairness bias in relation to decisions using a relativistic fairness-equity model, article, July 10, 2014; [Manchester, United Kingdom]. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc674080/: accessed August 17, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT College of Arts and Sciences.