Framing Perceptions of Justice in a Public Goods Dilemma

Atilgan H., Markovsky B.

SOCIAL JUSTICE RESEARCH, cilt.34, sa.4, ss.373-396, 2021 (SSCI) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 34 Sayı: 4
  • Basım Tarihi: 2021
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1007/s11211-021-00379-8
  • Dergi Adı: SOCIAL JUSTICE RESEARCH
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, IBZ Online, International Bibliography of Social Sciences, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Political Science Complete, Psycinfo, Public Affairs Index, Social services abstracts, Sociological abstracts, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.373-396
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Public goods, Title framing, Social value orientation (SVO), Justice perception, Social comparison, SOCIAL VALUE ORIENTATIONS, DECISION-MAKING, ENVIRONMENTAL UNCERTAINTY, DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE, PROSPECT-THEORY, COOPERATION, FAIRNESS, IDENTIFICATION, COORDINATION, EQUALITY
  • Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi Adresli: Hayır

Özet

In a social dilemma, group members have equal access to collective resources, but each must decide between acting in self-interested or collectively interested ways when considering their contribution to the group. Our research focused on how the perceived fairness of contributions and outcomes affects these decisions. We report on an experiment that manipulated two factors related to fairness: dilemma-framing that emphasized either individual or collective gains, and whether the partner's relative contribution was high, low, or equal to the subject's. Also, subjects' social value orientations-individualist vs. prosocial-were balanced across conditions. Subjects made two rounds of contribution decisions and received feedback on their outcomes after each. As hypothesized for first-round contributions, prosocials contributed more to public goods and framing had no discernable effect. In the second round, neither social value orientation nor framing influenced participants' fairness evaluations when partners made a low initial contribution to the group, but dilemma-framing affected participants' fairness evaluations when the partner made a high contribution to the group. Importantly, results generally supported key hypotheses for participants' attempts to rectify injustices via subsequent contributions and bonus sharing. Partner's contributions, social value orientation, and dilemma-framing all affected redistributive behaviors.