| 1. |
- Eek, Daniel, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of distributive goals on choices of allocation principles in a public-good dilemma
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Paper presented at The 10th conference of the international society for justice research (ISJR), Regina, Canada.
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Extending previous research on the role of fairness in social dilemmas, two experiments investigated allocation preferences in public good dilemmas. In Experiment 1, fairness conceptions were a significant predictor of how participants allocated the public good to their group. Experiment 2 aimed at studying the impact of distributive goals on allocation preferences. Participants were assigned to one of three conditions in which the different goals were induced. As hypothesized, the different goals affected which allocation principle the groups used to allocate the resource. These findings suggest that people in a public good dilemma apply the allocation principle that serves a particular group goal, even though this may interfere with their perceptions of fair allocations
|
|
| 2. |
- Eek, Daniel, et al.
(författare)
-
Prosocials prefer equal outcomes to maximizing joint outcomes
- 2006
-
Ingår i: British Journal of Social Psychology. - : British Psychological Society. - 0144-6665 .- 2044-8309. ; 45:2, s. 321-337
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Existing theories of social value orientations posit that prosocials maximize joint outcomes whereas proselfs maximize outcomes to themselves. Three studies employing a total of 157 undergraduates were conducted to test the alternative hypothesis that prosocials prefer equal outcomes to maximizing joint outcome. In Study 1 participants completed the Triple-Dominance Measure of Social Values in which a fourth alternative that distributed the largest joint outcome unequally was added to the alternative that distributed the outcomes equally. In accordance with the hypothesis, prosocials preferred the equal-outcome alternative to the joint-outcome alternative. Study 2 confirmed and extended these results by demonstrating that prosocials preferred equal outcomes to larger joint outcomes that were unequally distributed but provided both with larger outcomes. Study 3 demonstrated that in a modified prisoners dilemma game, a preference for equal outcomes to a larger joint outcome resulted in that prosocials cooperated when they believed or knew that the other cooperated, and defected when they believed or knew that the other defected.
|
|
| 3. |
- Eek, Daniel, et al.
(författare)
-
What determines peoples decisions whether or not to report sick?
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Applied economics. - : Routledge. - 0003-6846 .- 1466-4283. ; 37:5, s. 533-543
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Swedish employees who are temporarily absent from work are compensated for the loss of income from the governmentally regulated sickness insurance. During the 1990s, when the societal costs for covering sickness absence raised dramati-cally, the sickness insurance underwent several changes, which raised questions about how people reacted to the changes made. This article is based on a survey where individuals were asked several questions about whether they would go to work or report sick, given that they actually felt ill. Respondents were asked the same questions under different hypothetical compensations. The results indi-cated strong effects of factors related to the financial loss of being absent on the propensity to report sick.
|
|
| 4. |
- Kazemi, Ali, et al.
(författare)
-
Allocation of Public Goods: The Interplay of Self-Interest, Fairness, and Group Goal
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Social Psychology. - : Hogrefe Publishing Group. - 1864-9335 .- 2151-2590. ; 47:4, s. 214-222
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Seventy-two undergraduates participating in a step-level asymmetric public good dilemma were requested to distribute the provided public good among the group members to achieve different group goals. In Line with the hypotheses, economic productivity resulted in equitable allocations, harmony in equal allocations, and social concern in need-based allocations. The results also supported the hypotheses that salience of group goal minimizes influences of self-interest on allocations and that perceived fairness accounts for why people pursuing different group goals differ in their preferences for allocation of public goods.
|
|
| 5. |
- Kazemi, Ali, 1976-, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of fairness and distributive goal on preferred allocations in public good dilemmas
- 2005
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Two experiments investigated allocation preferences in symmetric public good di-lemmas. In Experiment1 where 20 undergraduates participated in 5-person groups, it was found that fairness conceptions were a significant predictor of how participants allocated the public good to their group. 60 undergraduates partici-pated in Experiment 2 aimed at studying the impact of goals of economic produc-tivity, social concern, and harmony on participants’ allocation preferences. Groups with economic productivity as their goal allocated the resource according to equity, groups with social concern as their goal allocated the resource accord-ing to equal treatment, and groups with harmony as their goal allocated the re-source according to equal final outcomes. These findings suggest that in a public good dilemma people apply the allocation principle that serves a particular goal, independently of their perceptions of fair allocations.
|
|
| 6. |
- Kazemi, Ali, et al.
(författare)
-
Equity, Equal Shares or Equal Final Outcomes? : Group Goal Guides Allocations of Public Goods
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Psychology. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 1664-1078. ; 8, s. 1-7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In an experiment we investigate preferences for allocation of a public good among group members who contributed unequally in providing the public good. Inducing the group goal of productivity resulted in preferences for equitable allocations, whereas inducing the group goals of harmony and social concern resulted in preferences for equal final outcomes. The study makes a contribution by simultaneously treating provision and allocation of a public good, thus viewing these as related processes. Another contribution is that a new paradigm is introduced that bears closer resemblance to real life public good dilemmas than previous research paradigms do.
|
|
| 7. |
- Kazemi, Ali, 1976, et al.
(författare)
-
The interplay between greed, fairness, and group goal in allocation preferences for public goods
- 2006
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Effects of group goal on allocation decisions have previously been studied in symmetric public good dilemmas. With the aim of generalizing the results to asymmetric public good dilemmas where differences in individual needs are more salient, seventy-two undergraduates participating in a one-shot public good dilemma were asked to distribute the good in order to achieve different group goals. As expected, when the group goal was economic productivity, allocations corresponded more to equity, when the group goal was harmony, allocations corresponded more to equality, and when the group goal was social concern, allocations corresponded more to need. The results support the assumption that salience of group goal minimizes the effects of greed on allocations, and that perceived fairness explains why people pursuing a certain group goal tend to prefer a specific allocation strategy in distributing public goods.
|
|
