Choosing an equitable or efficient option: A distribution dilemma

We conducted a 3 × 3 × 2 experiment to verify the moral preference hypothesis and extend the boundary conditions of the moral frame effect. Participants played a trade-off game (TOG), in which they unilaterally choose between an equitable or efficient option. We manipulated the labeling of the optio...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Social behavior and personality 2019-10, Vol.47 (10), p.1-10
Main Authors: Huang, Long, Lei, Wansheng, Xu, Fuming, Yu, Liang, Shi, Fujun
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cooperation
Decision making
Distribution Dilemma
Distributive justice
Efficiency
Efficient Option
Equitable Option
Equity
Games
Hypotheses
Moral Frame
Morality
Norms
Personality
Preferences
Prosocial Behavior
Social behavior
Social psychology
Theory
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c514t-323cd040d56d93158b5c033e3884388ff8dd149a1261ebd2ff03f0cd348353093
cites
container_end_page 10
container_issue 10
container_start_page 1
container_title Social behavior and personality
container_volume 47
creator Huang, Long
Lei, Wansheng
Xu, Fuming
Yu, Liang
Shi, Fujun
description We conducted a 3 × 3 × 2 experiment to verify the moral preference hypothesis and extend the boundary conditions of the moral frame effect. Participants played a trade-off game (TOG), in which they unilaterally choose between an equitable or efficient option. We manipulated the labeling of the options to describe the equitable versus efficient option as morally right, and controlled the amount of the stakes and division schemes in the TOG. We found there was a significant effect of moral frame when stakes were low in the TOG, and participants would choose a morally right option whether it was equitable or efficient. However, the effect of moral frame was nonsignificant when the stakes were high. In addition, the division schemes in the TOG had a great impact on the moral frame effect. Therefore, we found that when participants' interest in the options remains the same or the changes are small, and other players' interest changes greatly, the moral frame effect is not significant.
doi_str_mv 10.2224/sbp.8559
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_ingen</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_gale_infotracacademiconefile_A605911038</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ingid>sbp/sbp/2019/00000047/00000010/art00007</ingid><galeid>A605911038</galeid><sourcerecordid>A605911038</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c514t-323cd040d56d93158b5c033e3884388ff8dd149a1261ebd2ff03f0cd348353093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kduKFDEQhoMoOK6Cj9AgiF70WDn1wRsZBg8Li3uj3oZ0DjNZujuzSXpRn95kZmEd0ISiquCrP1R-hF5iWBNC2Ls4HNYd5_0jtMK47euG9vgxWgEFXBOCyVP0LMYbAGCcdSu02e69j27eVXKuzO3ikhxGU_lQGWudcmZOlT8k5-f31abSLqbghqX0uRnNNMnn6ImVYzQv7vMF-v7p47ftl_rq-vPldnNVK45ZqimhSgMDzRvdU8y7gSug1NCuYzms7bTGrJeYNNgMmlgL1ILSlHWUU-jpBXp10j0Ef7uYmMSNX8KcnxSEQscxZ5Q9UDs5GuFm61OQanJRiU0DvMcYaJep9T-ofLWZnPKzsXm384G3ZwOZSeZn2sklRnF5_eOcff0XuzdyTPvox-OnxXPwzQlUwccYjBWH4CYZfgkMopgpspmimJnRryc0O5UtkQ-7O3Wkir_FXnHH2rmMA8HQQyMwzzraWLmMSSQZxO63iG0W_PAfwaJWggDuBRwPa--LLCxDKlVL_wA8SrpW</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2308515434</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Choosing an equitable or efficient option: A distribution dilemma</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>EBSCOhost SPORTDiscus with Full Text</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>Sociology Collection</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Huang, Long ; Lei, Wansheng ; Xu, Fuming ; Yu, Liang ; Shi, Fujun</creator><creatorcontrib>Huang, Long ; Lei, Wansheng ; Xu, Fuming ; Yu, Liang ; Shi, Fujun</creatorcontrib><description>We conducted a 3 × 3 × 2 experiment to verify the moral preference hypothesis and extend the boundary conditions of the moral frame effect. Participants played a trade-off game (TOG), in which they unilaterally choose between an equitable or efficient option. We manipulated the labeling of the options to describe the equitable versus efficient option as morally right, and controlled the amount of the stakes and division schemes in the TOG. We found there was a significant effect of moral frame when stakes were low in the TOG, and participants would choose a morally right option whether it was equitable or efficient. However, the effect of moral frame was nonsignificant when the stakes were high. In addition, the division schemes in the TOG had a great impact on the moral frame effect. Therefore, we found that when participants' interest in the options remains the same or the changes are small, and other players' interest changes greatly, the moral frame effect is not significant.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0301-2212</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1179-6391</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2224/sbp.8559</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>P.O. Box 1539, Palmerston North 4440, New Zealand: Scientific Journal Publishers</publisher><subject>Cooperation ; Decision making ; Distribution Dilemma ; Distributive justice ; Efficiency ; Efficient Option ; Equitable Option ; Equity ; Games ; Hypotheses ; Moral Frame ; Morality ; Norms ; Personality ; Preferences ; Prosocial Behavior ; Social behavior ; Social psychology ; Theory</subject><ispartof>Social behavior and personality, 2019-10, Vol.47 (10), p.1-10</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Scientific Journal Publishers, Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright Scientific Journal Publishers Ltd 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c514t-323cd040d56d93158b5c033e3884388ff8dd149a1261ebd2ff03f0cd348353093</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2308515434/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2308515434?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,12846,21394,21395,27344,27924,27925,30999,33611,33774,34530,43733,44115,74221,74639</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Huang, Long</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lei, Wansheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Fuming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Liang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shi, Fujun</creatorcontrib><title>Choosing an equitable or efficient option: A distribution dilemma</title><title>Social behavior and personality</title><description>We conducted a 3 × 3 × 2 experiment to verify the moral preference hypothesis and extend the boundary conditions of the moral frame effect. Participants played a trade-off game (TOG), in which they unilaterally choose between an equitable or efficient option. We manipulated the labeling of the options to describe the equitable versus efficient option as morally right, and controlled the amount of the stakes and division schemes in the TOG. We found there was a significant effect of moral frame when stakes were low in the TOG, and participants would choose a morally right option whether it was equitable or efficient. However, the effect of moral frame was nonsignificant when the stakes were high. In addition, the division schemes in the TOG had a great impact on the moral frame effect. Therefore, we found that when participants' interest in the options remains the same or the changes are small, and other players' interest changes greatly, the moral frame effect is not significant.</description><subject>Cooperation</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Distribution Dilemma</subject><subject>Distributive justice</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Efficient Option</subject><subject>Equitable Option</subject><subject>Equity</subject><subject>Games</subject><subject>Hypotheses</subject><subject>Moral Frame</subject><subject>Morality</subject><subject>Norms</subject><subject>Personality</subject><subject>Preferences</subject><subject>Prosocial Behavior</subject><subject>Social behavior</subject><subject>Social psychology</subject><subject>Theory</subject><issn>0301-2212</issn><issn>1179-6391</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>HEHIP</sourceid><sourceid>M2S</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kduKFDEQhoMoOK6Cj9AgiF70WDn1wRsZBg8Li3uj3oZ0DjNZujuzSXpRn95kZmEd0ISiquCrP1R-hF5iWBNC2Ls4HNYd5_0jtMK47euG9vgxWgEFXBOCyVP0LMYbAGCcdSu02e69j27eVXKuzO3ikhxGU_lQGWudcmZOlT8k5-f31abSLqbghqX0uRnNNMnn6ImVYzQv7vMF-v7p47ftl_rq-vPldnNVK45ZqimhSgMDzRvdU8y7gSug1NCuYzms7bTGrJeYNNgMmlgL1ILSlHWUU-jpBXp10j0Ef7uYmMSNX8KcnxSEQscxZ5Q9UDs5GuFm61OQanJRiU0DvMcYaJep9T-ofLWZnPKzsXm384G3ZwOZSeZn2sklRnF5_eOcff0XuzdyTPvox-OnxXPwzQlUwccYjBWH4CYZfgkMopgpspmimJnRryc0O5UtkQ-7O3Wkir_FXnHH2rmMA8HQQyMwzzraWLmMSSQZxO63iG0W_PAfwaJWggDuBRwPa--LLCxDKlVL_wA8SrpW</recordid><startdate>20191001</startdate><enddate>20191001</enddate><creator>Huang, Long</creator><creator>Lei, Wansheng</creator><creator>Xu, Fuming</creator><creator>Yu, Liang</creator><creator>Shi, Fujun</creator><general>Scientific Journal Publishers</general><general>Scientific Journal Publishers, Ltd</general><general>Scientific Journal Publishers Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AYAGU</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20191001</creationdate><title>Choosing an equitable or efficient option: A distribution dilemma</title><author>Huang, Long ; Lei, Wansheng ; Xu, Fuming ; Yu, Liang ; Shi, Fujun</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c514t-323cd040d56d93158b5c033e3884388ff8dd149a1261ebd2ff03f0cd348353093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Cooperation</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Distribution Dilemma</topic><topic>Distributive justice</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Efficient Option</topic><topic>Equitable Option</topic><topic>Equity</topic><topic>Games</topic><topic>Hypotheses</topic><topic>Moral Frame</topic><topic>Morality</topic><topic>Norms</topic><topic>Personality</topic><topic>Preferences</topic><topic>Prosocial Behavior</topic><topic>Social behavior</topic><topic>Social psychology</topic><topic>Theory</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Huang, Long</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lei, Wansheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Fuming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Liang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shi, Fujun</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Australia &amp; New Zealand Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Social behavior and personality</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Huang, Long</au><au>Lei, Wansheng</au><au>Xu, Fuming</au><au>Yu, Liang</au><au>Shi, Fujun</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Choosing an equitable or efficient option: A distribution dilemma</atitle><jtitle>Social behavior and personality</jtitle><date>2019-10-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>10</epage><pages>1-10</pages><issn>0301-2212</issn><eissn>1179-6391</eissn><abstract>We conducted a 3 × 3 × 2 experiment to verify the moral preference hypothesis and extend the boundary conditions of the moral frame effect. Participants played a trade-off game (TOG), in which they unilaterally choose between an equitable or efficient option. We manipulated the labeling of the options to describe the equitable versus efficient option as morally right, and controlled the amount of the stakes and division schemes in the TOG. We found there was a significant effect of moral frame when stakes were low in the TOG, and participants would choose a morally right option whether it was equitable or efficient. However, the effect of moral frame was nonsignificant when the stakes were high. In addition, the division schemes in the TOG had a great impact on the moral frame effect. Therefore, we found that when participants' interest in the options remains the same or the changes are small, and other players' interest changes greatly, the moral frame effect is not significant.</abstract><cop>P.O. Box 1539, Palmerston North 4440, New Zealand</cop><pub>Scientific Journal Publishers</pub><doi>10.2224/sbp.8559</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0301-2212
ispartof Social behavior and personality, 2019-10, Vol.47 (10), p.1-10
issn 0301-2212
1179-6391
language eng
recordid cdi_gale_infotracacademiconefile_A605911038
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); EBSCOhost SPORTDiscus with Full Text; Social Science Premium Collection; Sociology Collection; Sociological Abstracts
subjects Cooperation
Decision making
Distribution Dilemma
Distributive justice
Efficiency
Efficient Option
Equitable Option
Equity
Games
Hypotheses
Moral Frame
Morality
Norms
Personality
Preferences
Prosocial Behavior
Social behavior
Social psychology
Theory
title Choosing an equitable or efficient option: A distribution dilemma
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T04%3A51%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_ingen&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Choosing%20an%20equitable%20or%20efficient%20option:%20A%20distribution%20dilemma&rft.jtitle=Social%20behavior%20and%20personality&rft.au=Huang,%20Long&rft.date=2019-10-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=10&rft.pages=1-10&rft.issn=0301-2212&rft.eissn=1179-6391&rft_id=info:doi/10.2224/sbp.8559&rft_dat=%3Cgale_ingen%3EA605911038%3C/gale_ingen%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c514t-323cd040d56d93158b5c033e3884388ff8dd149a1261ebd2ff03f0cd348353093%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2308515434&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A605911038&rft_ingid=sbp/sbp/2019/00000047/00000010/art00007&rfr_iscdi=true