Citation
Positive versus negative allocation

Material Information

Title:
Positive versus negative allocation choice of justice principle in the distribution of information
Creator:
Ahlin, Elva D
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
iv, [47] leaves : forms ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Distributive justice ( lcsh )
Resource allocation ( lcsh )
Distributive justice ( fast )
Resource allocation ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Colorado at Denver, 1996.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Arts, Sociology.
General Note:
Department of Sociology
Statement of Responsibility:
by Elva D. Ahlin.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
36949168 ( OCLC )
ocm36949168

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

POSITIVE VERSUS NEGATIVE ALLOCATION: CHOICE OF JUSTICE PRINCIPLE IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION by Elva D. Ahlin B.A., University of Colorado at Denver, 1994 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Sociology 1996

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Elva D. Ahlin has been approved by Date

PAGE 3

Ahlin, Elva D. (M.A., Sociology) Positive Versus Negative Allocation: Choice Of Justice Principle In The Distribution Of Information Thesis directed by Professor KjellY. Tornblom ABSTRACT Recent decisions made by government officials and other policy makers are affecting all levels of society (i.e, budgetary cutbacks and environmental preservation). Issues around whether or not these decisions are being felt by some groups more than others, such as the disadvantaged, are of major importance to those concerned with justice and fairness in the allocation of resources in society. Some allocations may benefit one group, while at the same time negatively affect another group. But whether or not people feel rewarded or penalized, they usually have opinions about whether or not the allocation was just or fair to any or all concerned. The major purpose of the present study was to explore whether (1) the manner or mode in which positive and negative outcome allocations are accomplished (each operationalized as delivering and withholding a good or bad), or (2) the sign of outcome allocation (i.e., whether the outcome is a good or a bad)-or both-may account for similarities or differences in a person's justice evaluation of an allocation principle. In this vignette study that describes nuclear testing being conducted by the U.S. and the Russian governments, equitable, equal, and need-based positive and negative allocations were accomplished via the modes of delivering and withholding. iii

PAGE 4

The types of positive and negative outcome allocation involved in this study may, perhaps, be categorized as distribution and deprivation, respectively, and the allocated outcome was information surrounding nuclear testing that was conducted at sites in both the U.S. and in Russia. This abstract accurately represents the contents of the candidate's thesis. I recommend its publication. Kjell Y. Tomblom iv

PAGE 5

DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to Vonnie, Pamela, and Johnny for their unfaltering understanding and support while I was writing this.

PAGE 6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT My appreciation to Professor Kjell Tomblon for his patience and guidance throughout this research project. My thanks is extended to Professors Richard Anderson and Karl Flaming for their encouragement, understanding and support during the past two years.

PAGE 7

CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1 The Problem ...................................................... 2 Purpose of the Study ............................................. 2 Previous Research ................................................ 3 Study Design ...................................................... 6 Method ........................................................... tO Respondents and Procedure .......................... 10 Design of the Vignette Questionnaire ............... 11 The Vignette ............................................ 12 Questionnaire Version 1 ............................. .13 Questionnaire Version 2 ............................... 14 Questionnaire Version 3 .............................. 15 Questionnaire Version 4 .............................. 15 2. RESULTS ................................................................. 18 Ratings of Three Allocation Principles ....................... 18 Sign of Allocation and Fairness Ratings ..................... 19 vii

PAGE 8

Mode of Outcome Allocation and Fairness Ratings ............................................................ 21 How American Respondents Feel American Citizens View Fairness ......................................... 24 How American Respondents Feel Russian Citizens View Fairness ......................................... 26 How American Respondents Feel American Military Officers View Fairness .............................. 28 How American Respondents Feel Russian Officers View Fairness ......................................... 30 The Importance of Fairness to Citizens Versus the Importance of Fairness to Army Personnel in the United States and in Russia ............................ 30 3. DISCUSSION ............................................................ 32 APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRES .............................................................. 38 REFERENCES ............................................................................. 46 viii

PAGE 9

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION When people interact within a society, things that are considered valuable by its members are exchanged or distributed among individuals and groups of individuals. The distribution of a resource can be accomplished in a number of ways and may involve either a positive or a negative outcome. The purpose of this study is to find out if people prefer the same or different allocation rules for positive and negative outcomes when different modes of accomplishing the allocation are employed. Assuming that groups face problems concerned with allocations of both positive and negative resources of various kinds, it is curious that the latter has been relatively neglected in theoretical and empirical research to date. Injustices that result from the allocation of aversive conditions can be no less serious than injustices that result from the allocation of desirable conditions. Determining the way in which punishments are to be doled out can be no less difficult than deciding how to distribute rewards. Researchers have fairly recently begun work in this area (e.g., Meeker and Elliott, 1987; Tomblom and Johnson, 1985, 1987; Tomblom, 1988).

PAGE 10

The Problem Problems in resource allocation arise (particularly in the face of resource scarcity) as the distributor frequently has to make a choice among several allocation principles, such as equality, equity, or need. For instance, pay raises (positive outcome allocation) could be allocated to employees based on equality. That is, the same dollar amount and number of annual pay increases would be given to everyone, regardless of individual contributions. Or pay raises might be allocated to individual employees based on equity, in which case pay hikes would be rewarded in some proportion to the individual's contributions. Finally, the allocation of pay raises may be based on the individual needs of the employees. These three allocation principles may, of course, also be used in the distribution of negative outcomes, such as fines and concessions that would result in burdens, losses, and punishments. Purpose of The Study In the present study, we are interested in finding out if and under what conditions people's conceptions of justice correspond to or differ for positive and negative outcome allocation. Do people generally like benefits and harms to be allocated on the basis of the same criterion? Or are positive and negative outcome allocations considered to be two separate and independent problems? Do members 2

PAGE 11

of a social group want rewards to be distributed equally and punishment in proportion to responsibility? Or would some prefer both rewards and punishments to be meted out according to needs? (Tomblom, 1988:162). Results from existing research show that the allocation principle considered appropriate for positive and negative outcome allocation sometimes corresponds and sometimes does not. Findings are inconsistent, because isolated studies differ in a number of ways, such as design and methodology, relationship among recipients and between recipient and allocator, number of recipients, institutional context, type of allocated resource, and mode of accomplishing the outcome allocation (e.g., giving, withholding, taking away). Previous Research The effect of "type of social relationship" on choice of allocation principle was considered for positive and negative resource allocation in a vignette study conducted by Lamm and Kayser (1978a). German mille university students were asked to determine the amount of money two fictitious males working on a joint task should receive or pay, respectively, following a successful or an unsuccessful project. When the two partners were described as "acquaintances", subjects preferred the same principle, (i.e., equality) for both positive and negative outcome allocation. When they were described as "friends", however, subjects favored 3

PAGE 12

equality for positive outcome allocation and the contribution principle for negative outcome allocation. In another study, Tornblom and Jonsson (1985, 1987) asked Swedish female nursing students to evaluate the fairness of distributing or withholding monetary bonuses according to the equality and contribution principles in a sport context. Equality was considered the most just principle for both positive and negative outcome allocations when recipients were described as a "soccer team." When recipients were 'competing runners' equality was favored for negative outcomes while the contribution and equality principles were about equally preferred for positive outcomes. Several studies have focused on "input related individual factors" concerned with positive and negative resource allocation. German male and female upper level high school students were asked, in a study by Kayser and Lamm (1980), how much money two similar persons should receive or pay subsequent to the success or failure of a joint project. When success and failure resulted from high and low ability, respectively, subjects preferred equality for both positive and negative outcome allocations. But when success and failure were due to high and low ""effort", respectively, they favored the contribution principle for positive but equality for negative outcomes. Male and female American undergraduate subjects, in Meeker and Elliot's (1987) study, preferred the contribution principle for positive outcome allocation when recipients made high contributions and/or had low waste, 4

PAGE 13

while equality was favored for negative outcome allocation. Finally, Tornblom et al. (1980) found that Swedish male army draftees believed that a male recipient who is responsible for positive or negative conduct (resulting in the consequences to be meted out) would consider it just to give non-responsible persons as much reward (days of leisure) as he receives but unjust to impose equal amounts of punishment (days of confinement) on them. Non-responsible persons were believed to consider equality as just for positive outcome allocation, but for negative outcomes subjects were divided: 52% attributed positive and 48% negative justice evaluations of the equality principle. In a cross-cultural study by Murphy-Berman et al. (1984), money was the type of resource employed. Results indicated that both American and Indian males endorsed the need principle to a greater extent for the allocation of negative outcomes (a pay cut of 200 dollars/rupees to be distributed between two employees) than for positive outcomes (dividing a bonus of200 dollars/rupees). Because isolated studies differ along many important dimensions, results cannot be compared to help us make predictions about choices of allocation principles preferred for positive and negative outcomes. The effects of a variety of factors such as type of resource (i.e., love, status, information, money, goods, and services), type of outcome allocation, (e.g., rewards or punishments), and mode of delivery (i.e., delivering, withholding, or withdrawing), must be controlled within a systematic framework. This study is based on a conceptual framework for positive 5

PAGE 14

and negative outcome allocation that has been developed by Tomblom (1988) Study Design Table 1.1: Destgn ofthe Study Tomblom, 1988 Sign of Mode of ALLOCATION PRINCIPLES Outcome Outcome Allocation Accomplishment .furni!y POSITIVE NEGATIVE Deliver Benefit (info) Withhold Harm (misinfo) Deliver Harm (misinfo) "The army personnel who are stationed on the site and who have contributed time and effort to setting up the nuclear test is the only grmm that will be told that the resulting radi ation was unsafe and harmful to people, ani mals, and vegetation." ... will not be misled into believing that the test was safe and harm less to ... With the exception of the army personnel who ... everyone else living in the area will be misled into believ ing that. .. ... will not be told that Withhold the resulting radiation Benefit from the test was unsafe (info) and harmful to ... 6 Need "The children, the elderly, and those others living in the area who are suf fering from illnes sess that make them more susceptible to adverse effects of radiation exposure are the only groups that will be told ... " ... will not be mis led into believing that the test was safe and harmless to ... With the excep tion ofthe child ren ... ,everyone else living in the area will be mis led ... " ... will not be told that the re sulting radiation from the test was Equality "Without ex ception, every one living in the area will be told ... " ... Will not be misled into be believing that the test was safe and harm less to ... "Without exception, everyone liv ing in the area will be misled ... " .. Will not be told that the resulting radia tion from the unsafe and harmtest was unsafe ful to ... and harmful to ..

PAGE 15

As illustrated in Table 1.1, positive and negative outcome allocations are two basic forms of allocation. As indicated by the second set of boxes, each of these two processes may (a) subsume different types, (b) be accomplished with different intentions in mind on the part of the allocator, and ( c) produce different "results" from the perspective of recipients as well as allocators and outside observers The different types (e.g., reward, benefaction, punishment, and revenge) may imply certain underlying motives on the part of the allocator, (the intent to reward or punish the recipient, for example). Other types may be more "neutral" (e.g., gain, profit, gratification, loss, cost, or burden), in that it might not immediately be evident that the outcome allocation was accomplished with an intention in mind. The results of the allocation process may also vary. The perceived result may or may not correspond to the type and intent of a particular allocation. We must keep in mind that a particular term used as a designation for outcome allocation may refer to either its type, the intention, or the resulting state. In the third set of boxes, Tomblom identifies three different ways in which any type/intent/result of positive and negative outcome allocation may be accomplished. The ways, or modes, of accomplishing an allocation are here distinguished as delivering, withholding, and withdrawing. For example, to accomplish a positive outcome allocation, one might reward the recipient by delivering desirable conditions or by withholding or withdrawing aversive 7

PAGE 16

conditions. To illustrate, a parent might praise a child for her accomplishments and apologize for or refrain from criticizing her for her shortcomings. A negative outcome, or punishment, on the other hand, could result from delivering a negative resource or by withholding or withdrawing a positively valued resource. In a job situation, an employee might deliberately give incorrect or incomplete information to a new staff member, or he might withhold helpful or necessary assistance to that co-worker. Finally, as seen in the fourth set of boxes, the particular resources that are allocated have been classified as either positive or negative outcomes (i.e., desirable or aversive conditions; "benefits" and "harms", respectively). These are the material or non.:inunaterial (concrete or abstract) resources which are delivered, withheld, or withdrawn. The resources can be grouped into a number of categories or classes. Tomblom has incorporated into his model a resource classification system proposed by Foa (1971). This system encompasses the six general resource categories of love, status, information, money, goods, and services. According to Foa's definitions, love is an expression of affectionate regard, warmth, or comfort; status indicates an evaluative judgment that conveys prestige, regard, or esteem; information includes advice, opinions, instruction, or enlightenment but excludes those behaviors that could be classed as love or status; money is any coin, currency, 8

PAGE 17

or token that has soine standard unit of exchange value; goods are tangible products, objects, or materials, and services involve activities that affect the body or belongings of a person and that often constitute labor for another. Foa defines resource as, ... any item, concrete or symbolic, which can become the object of exchange among people." (Foa, 1971). Each of the six resource classes may subsume harms as well as benefits (i.e., negative and positive outcomes). It is possible to specify negative "values" of each resource class. For instance, the resource class of"love" may include aversion, coldness, and detachment (in which case we would speak of "negative affect" rather than love). Similarly, deception is an example "information" (or "misinformation") and assault is a negative value of' service" (or disservice"), and so on. The major focus of this study is to find out how people prefer to have information distributed among various groups when mode of delivery (e.g., delivering and withholding) was controlled for positive and negative outcome allocation. As previously stated, earlier research has not been able to determine whether or not peoples' conception about what is fair or just when resources are distributed are the same or different for positive and negative allocations because studies differed along several dimensions. For example, positive outcome allocations have only been accomplished through delivering a benefit, but not by withholding or withdrawing a harm. At the same time, negative outcome allocations 9

PAGE 18

were defined in these studies as withholding or withdrawing benefits, but not as delivering a harm. By employing the above systematic framework in the design of this study, extraneous variables were held constant and the effects ofthose of interest were more accurately and systematically assessed on the choice and/or evaluation of allocation principle. Some additional issues are raised in this study, e.g., do Americans believe that their countrymen have the same or different justice conceptions as compared to Russians? In essence, the focus is on perceived in-group versus out-group and intra-group versus inter-group differences injustice orientations when information or misinformation is delivered or withheld. If asked about their perceptions of intra group differences, would respondents believe that fairness is viewed the same or differently by the military and citizens in the United States and in Russia? And if respondents are asked to make attributions about inter-group differences, would they believe American and Russian citizens would differ in their evaluations of the three justice principles (i.e., equity, equality, and need)? Method Respondents and Procedure A total of253 undergraduate students (75 males, mean age= 24.2 and 178 females, mean age= 25.1) were recruited from introductory sociology and 10

PAGE 19

psychology classes at the University of Colorado at Denver. Questionnaires were distributed during regular class meetings and participation was voluntary. Design of the Vignette Questionnaire Recent disclosures by the U.S. Department of Energy regarding unreported nuclear weapons tests conducted during the Cold War give rise to a number of ethical questions surrounding the government's secret activities. For example, should government officials have informed citizens of their intent prior to running the tests? Should decisions regarding nuclear testing be made by the government, by the citizens, or jointly by both groups? Should the government have informed citizens when radioactive gases were accidentally released into the atmosphere even when amounts were too low to be considered harmful? These and other related questions were addressed in this study. Eight vignettes were constructed around a common scenario involving nuclear tests performed by the American and Russian annies and subsequent discussions among officers ( 1) about to whom information should be conveyed (allocated) about the danger of radiation, and (2) about the manner in which it should be done. In four of the vignettes the test was set in the United States, and in the remaining four, the test was set in Russia. The vignette method was particularly suited for this study because respondents could be presented with a realistic set of circumstances in a hypothetical 11

PAGE 20

situation and be invited to respond in a non-personal and non-threatening way. The Vignette A nuclear test was performed by the American (Russian) Army in the state ofNevada (on the Siberian plains). The officers in command were well acquainted with the fact that the resulting radiation can spread over wide areas and expose people, animals, and vegetation to dangerous, and sometimes fatal, doses. Discussions among officers generated a number of opinions and suggestions regarding their responsibility to make information publicly acces,sible. Concerns were expressed about the manner in which information should be conveyed and about who or what groups of people should be alerted to the situation. Listed below are some of the suggestions that emerged during the discussions: Subjects were asked to respond to one of eight different versions of the questionnaire. In four versions, the tests were performed in the U.S. by the American Army, whereas in the other four, the Russian army was responsible for conducting the tests in Russia. Thus, half of the respondents were told that nuclear tests were conducted at sites in the USA and the other half at sites in Russia. Each of the four U.S. and each of the four Russia questionnaires differ with regard to the ways in which the vignette described how information about the tests was being distributed among various groups of people, resulting in two modes of positive and two modes of negative outcome accomplishment. In the first version of the questionnaire information was being delivered; in the second version misinformation was being withheld; in the third version misinformation was 12

PAGE 21

delivered, and in the fourth version information was withheld. Common for all questionnaire versions was that each mode of outcome accomplishment could take the form of three allocation principles: the contribution (equity), the need, and the equality principles. The distinction among the three principles was made via the groups of people selected to: (1) be told, (2) not be misled, (3) be misled, or (4) not be told about the dangers surrounding nuclear testing and their possible exposure to radiation fallout. In each questionnaire, either the army personnel, who have contributed time and effort to setting and carrying out the nuclear test (the contribution principle), the most vulnerable, including the children, the elderly or the ill (the need principle), or everyone living in the area (the equality principle) would or would not receive information. Therefore, choice of allocation principle is expected to be reflected in respondents' decision about which group of people would be exposed to either a positive or a negative resource allocation. The following four versions of the questionnaire all present the equity, need and equality principles, respectively: Questionnaire Version 1 (I) The army personnel who are stationed on the test site, and who have contributed time and effort to setting up and carrying out the nuclear test, is the only group that will be told that the resulting radiation from the test was unsafe and harmful to people, animals, and vegetation. [equity principle] 13

PAGE 22

(II) The children, the elderly, and those others living in the area who are suffering from illnesses that make them more susceptible to adverse effects of radiation exposure are the only groups that will be told that the resulting radiation from the test was unsafe and harmful to people, animals, and vegetation. [need principle] (III) Without exception, everyone living in the area will be told that resulting radiation from the test was unsafe and harmful to people, animals, and vegetation. [equality principle] Questionnaire Version 2 (I) The army personnel who are stationed on the test site, and who have contributed time and effort to setting up and carrying out the nuclear test, is the only group that will not be misled into believing that the test was safe and harmless to people, animals, and vegetation. [equity principle] (II) The children, the elderly, and those others living in the area who are suffering from illnesses that make them more susceptible to adverse effects of radiation exposure are the only groups that will not be misled into believing that the test was safe and harmless to people, animals, and vegetation. [need principle] (III) Without exception, everyone living in the area will not be misled into believing that the test was safe and harmless to people, animals, and 14

PAGE 23

vegetation. [equality principle] Questionnaire Version 3 (I) With the exception of the army personnel who are stationed on the test site, and who have contributed time and effort to setting up and carrying out the nuclear test, everyone else living in the area will be misled into believing that the test was safe and harmless to people, animals, and vegetation. [equity principle] (II) With the exception of the children, the elderly, and those others living in the area who are suffering from illnesses that make them more susceptible to adverse effects of radiation exposure, everyone else living in the area will be misled into believing that the test was safe and harmless to people, animals, and vegetation. [need principle] (III) Without exception, everyone living in the area will be misled into believing that the test was safe and harmless to people, animals, and vegetation. [equality principle] Questionnaire Version 4 (D With the exception of the army personnel who are stationed on the test site and who have contributed time and effort to setting up and carrying out the nuclear test, everyone else living in the area will not be told that resulting radiation from the test was unsafe and harmful to people, animals, and 15

PAGE 24

vegetation. [equity principle] (II) With the exception of the children, the elderly, and those others living in the area who are suffering from illnesses that make them more susceptible to adverse effects of radiation exposure, everyone else living in the area will not be told that the resulting radiation from the test was unsafe and harmful to people, animals, and vegetation. [need principle] (III) Without exception, everyone living in the area will not be told that the resulting radiation from the test was unsafe and harmful to people, animals, and vegetation. [equality principle] After reading the vignette, subjects were asked to respond to a number of different questions intended to probe their justice evaluations of the three allocation principles and test whether or not their evaluations of a principle would be different, (1) for positive as compared to negative allocations, and (2) for the two different modes of positive and negative outcome accomplishment (see appendix 1). One ofthe major dependent variables in this study was subjects' fairness ratings of the three allocation principles (equity, need, and equality). Their perceptions were measured along 7-point Likert scales (ranging from 1 ="totally unfair" to 7 = "perfectly unfair"). Respondents were also asked to select the principle that they would follow if they were to act as fairly as possible under the 16

PAGE 25

conditions presented in their respective vignettes, ("if you wanted to act as fairly as possible, which one of the three suggestions would you follow?") 17

PAGE 26

CHAPTER2 RESULTS Ratings of Tlrree Allocation Principles A tlrree-way ANOVA (site, sign, mode) for each principle (equity, need, equality) showed no main effect for site (i.e., USA versus USSR) and no interaction effects on fairness ratings of the tlrree allocation principles. Therefore, the data for matching conditions for the two sites were combined, resulting in four rather than eight conditions. Table 2.1 shows the mean ratings for the equity, need, and equality principles for each of the four conditions. Table 2.1: Mean ratings ofTlrree Allocation Principles for Positive and Negative Allocations accomplished via two modes: Sign of Outcome Allocation: Positive Negative Mode of Accomplishment Deliver Benefit (info) Withhold Harm (misinfo) Deliver Harm (misinfo) Withhold Benefit (info) 18 Allocation Principles Equity Need Equali!Y_ 1.59 2.58 6.36 (64) (64) (64) 2.11 3.19 6.56 (64) (64) (64) 2.23 2.99 2.89 (66) (66) (59) 2.22 3.31 2.56 (59) (59) (59)

PAGE 27

The only allocation principle considered fair (in this case, nearly "perfectly fair") was the equality principle, but only so for positive outcome allocation (for both modes of accomplishing outcomes). The equity and need principles were rated unfair for all four modes, while the equality principle was seen as unfair only for the two modes of accomplishing negative outcome allocation. Sign of Allocation and Fairness Ratings A repeated measures ANOV A was performed, one between-subjects factor with two levels (i.e., sign: positive vs. negative) and one within-subject factor with three levels (i.e. principle: equity, need, and equality). There were main effects of sign [(1,502)=63.77,p<.0001]. (see Table 2.2) Table 2.2 (reading horizontally) shows the effect of Sign of Outcome Allocation on the ratings ofthe three principles. A three-way ANOVA (site, sign, mode) for each principle showed main effects of sign (but no interaction effects )for [F(1,244) = 4.27; p < .04] and equality [F(1,244) = 264.69; p < .0001] principles. The equity and equality principles were rated significantly different for positive as compared to negative allocation (equity is less aversive when allocating harms as compared to benefits, 2.2 vs. 1.8, while equality is almost "perfectly fair" for benefit but "rather unfair" for harm allocation, (6.5 vs 2.7). 19

PAGE 28

Table 2.2: Mean Ratings of three Allocation Principles for Positive and Negative Allocations: Allocation Principles: Equity Need Equality p = <.04 ** p < .0001 Sign of Outcome Allocation: Positive Negative F 1.85 2.22 4.27* (128) (125) 2.88 3.14 1.84 (128) (125) 6.46 2.74 (128) (125) 264.69** The means for the three allocation principles were significantly different from each other in positive outcome allocation: their rank ordering (descending fairness ratings) was equality > need > equity (equality was considered the most, and the only, fair principle, while both need and equity were seen as unfair). The rank order for negative outcome allocation was [need and equality] >equity, all three principles being rated unfair. An examination of the responses to the task of selecting the fairest principle of the three matched, in general, the mean ratings (see Table 2.3). Nearly 95% considered equality the most fair principle for positive outcome allocation. However, whereas there was a tie between fairness evaluations of the need and 20

PAGE 29

equality principles for negative outcome allocation, more than half of the respondents (54.4%) now picked need as the fairest principle. A Chi square analysis gave significant results: [Chi square= 98.28;df=2;p<.0001]. Table 2.3: Endorsement of three Allocation Principles for Positive and Negative Allocations (across modes) Sign of Outcome Allocation: Positive Negative Equity 3.1% (4) 9.6% (12) Allocation Principles: Need 2.3% (3) 54.4% (68) Equality Totals 94.5% 100% (121) (128) 36% 100% (45) (125) Numbers within parentheses represent the number of respondents who chose the particular principle as the most fair one of the three. Mode of Outcome Allocation and Fairness Ratings A repeated measures ANOV A was performed, one-between subjects factor and four levels (i.e., mode: deliver-negative, deliver-positive, withhold-positive, withholdnegative) and one within-subject factor with three levels (i.e., principle: equity, need, and equality). There were main effects of mode [F(3,498) = 23.61, p <.0001] and principle [F (2,498) = 196.08, p <.0001]. More importantly, there was also a mode x principle interaction effect [F(6,498) = 52.84, p <.0001]. (see Table (2.4) There were no significant differences between the two modes of accomplishing negative outcome (i.e., delivering harm vs. withholding benefit) with 21

PAGE 30

regard to their effect on respondent's ratings of any of the three allocation principles. However, for positive outcome allocation significant differences were obtained (see Table 2.5) between the two modes (i.e., delivering benefit vs. Withholding harm) as to their impact on their ratings of the equity and need (but not the equality) principles. Table 2.4: Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance with one Between-subjects Factor and one Within-subjects Factor (principle) Source of variation Between-subjects effects Condition (mode) Residual Within-subjects effects Principle Principle x Condition Residual *p < .0001 S.S. 221.312 778.169 862.577 697.389 1095.367 DF 3 249 2 6 498 F 23.605* 196.082* 52.844* Respondents' choice of the fairest principle of the three for each mode of outcome accomplishment gave results consistent with above findings (see Table 2.5). Equality was the most heavily endorsed principle in both conditions for positive outcome allocation. For negative outcome allocation, most respondents in the withhold benefit condition endorsed the need principle, while the need and 22

PAGE 31

equality principles were about equally endorsed for the deliver-harm mode. Chi square analysis gave significant results: [Chi square= 6; p <.0001]. Table 2.5: Endorsement of three Allocation Principles for Positive and Negative Allocation as accomplished via two modes. Sign of Mode of Allocation Princi12les Outcome Outcome Allocation: Accomplishment: Equity Need Equality Totals Deliver 4.7% 1.6% 93.8% 100% Benefit (3) (1) (60) (64) (info) Positive Withhold Harm 1.6% 3.1% 95.3% 100% (misinfo) (1) (2) (61) (64) Deliver 12.1% 45.5% 42.4% 100% Harm (8) (30) (28) (66) (misinfo) Negative Withhold 6.8% 64.4% 28.8% 100% Benefit (4) (38) (17) (59) (info) Numbers within parentheses represent the number of respondents who chose the particular principle as the most fair one of the three] For negative outcome allocation, most respondents in the withhold-benefit condition endorsed the need principle, while the need and equality principles were about equally endorsed for the deliver-harm mode. Chi Square analysis gave significant results: [Chi square= 105.09; df= 6; p < .0001] 23

PAGE 32

HowAmerican Respondents Feel American Citizens View Fairness When we asked the American respondents to select the principle that they thought American citizens would view as most fair, for each mode of delivery, no significant differences were obtained. However, when we controlled for sign of outcome allocation (positive versus negative outcome), there was a difference in respondents' prediction of American citizens' view of the most fair principle. (see Table 2.6) Table 2.6: Americans' view of American citizens' choice of allocation principle by mode of delivery for a Positive Outcome Allocation Equity Need Equality Col Pet 1.0 2.0 3.0 Column Total Mode of Delivery Deliver Withhold 1.00 2.00 1 1.6 5 7.9 57 90.5 63 69.2 1 3.6 22 78.6 5 17.9 28 30.8 Total 2 2.2 27 29.7 62 68.1 91 100.0 Chi square revealed that when a positive outcome was delivered, the Equality principle was almost always selected (90.5% ofthe time). For withholding a positive resource, the Need principle was believed to be the most fair principle by 24

PAGE 33

American citizens (78.6% ofthe time). Lambda was .58621. Therefore, 58% ofthe variation in choice of principle is explained by mode of delivery when positive information is being delivered or withheld For the delivery of a negative outcome, the need principle was most often predicted to be the principle that would be viewed most fair by American citizens (75.8% of the time), while the equality principle was assumed to be the most fair choice (67% of the time) when negative information was withheld. (see Table 2.7) Lambda measured the association at 43%. Table 2.7: American Respondents view of American Citizens' choice of Allocation Principle by Mode of Delivery for a Negative Outcome Allocation Col Pet Equity 1.00 Need 2.00 Equality 3.00 Column Total Deliver 1.00 5 7.6 50 75.8 11 16.7 66 41.3 Withhold 2.00 4 4.3 27 28.7 63 67.0 94 58.8 Row Total 9 5.6 77 48.1 74 46.3 160 100.0 In other words, mode of delivery alone did not influence participants' decision when selecting the principle that they felt that American citizens would view as most fair 25

PAGE 34

Controlling for type of resource (positive versus negative) however, did make a difference in their response. In the allocation of a positive outcome, the American respondents felt that American citizens would find the Equality principle most fair, and when a negative outcome is allocated, American citizens would find the need principle most fair. How American Respondents Feel Russian Citizens View Fairness In a similar fashion, we asked the American respondents to select the principle that they thought Russian citizens would view as most fair by mode of delivery. Once again, we did not find significance. As before, when we controlled for "type of resource" (positive versus negative resource} we found that there was a difference in respondents' prediction of Russian citizens' view ofthe most fair principle. When a positive resource was delivered, the Equality principle was chosen most often (73.0% of the time). For withholding a positive resource, the Need principle was believed to be the most fair principle for Russian citizens (60.7% of the time). Therefore, type of outcome (harm vs benefit) affects respondents' choice of allocation principle. Lambda measured the significance at .30, indicating that 30% of the variation in choice of principle is explained by mode of delivery when positive information is delivered or withheld. (see Table 2.8) 26

PAGE 35

Table 2.8: American Respondents' View of Russian Citizens' Choice of Allocation Principle by Mode of Delivery for a Positive Outcome Allocation Col Pet 1.00 Equity 2.00 Need 3.00 Equality Column Total Deliver 1.00 3 4.8 14 22.2 46 73.0 63 69.2 Withhold 2.00 6 21.4 17 60.7 5 17.9 28 30.8 Row Total 9 9.9 31 34.1 51 56.0 91 100.0 For the delivery of a negative resource, the Need principle was most often selected (63.6% of the time). (see Table 2.9) And for withholding a negative resource the equality principle was the most popular choice of principle (56.4% of the time). Using Lambda as the measure of association between the variables, 25% of the variation in choice of principle is explained by mode of delivery when negative information is withheld. This shows a moderately low level of association. Russian citizens would therefore find the equality principle most fair for a positive outcome, and the and the need principle most fair for a negative outcome. 27

PAGE 36

Table 2.9: American Respondents' view of Russian Citizens Choice of Allocation Principle by Mode of Delivery for a Negative Outcome Allocation Equity Need Count Col 1.00 2.00 3.00 Deliver 1.00 8 12.1 42 63.6 16 Withhold 2.00 10 10.6 31 33.0 53 Row Total 18 11.3 73 45.6 Equality 24.2 56.4 69 43.1 Column Total 66 41.3 94 58.8 160 100.0 In summation, the American respondents felt that for both American citizens and Russian citizens, the Equality principle would be viewed as most fair in the allocation of a positive resource, and the Need principle would likely be viewed as the most fair principle when a negative resource is allocated. How American Respondents Feel American Military Officers View Fairness When we asked American respondents to select the principle that they thought American military officers would view as most fair, we did not find significance by mode of delivery. However, when we controlled for "resource sign", (positive vs negative resource), there was a difference in respondents' 28

PAGE 37

prediction of American military officers' view of the most fair principle, but only for a negative resource. Table 2.10: American Respondents' View of American Military Officers' Choice of Allocation Principle by Mode of Delivery for Negative Outcome Col Pet 1.00 Equity 2.00 Need 3.00 Equality Column Total Deliver 1.00 47 71.2 8 12.1 11 16.7 66 41.3 Withhold 2.00 51 54.3 28 29.8 15 16.0 94 58.8 Row Total 98 61.3 36 22.5 26 16.3 160 100.0 When a negative resource was being withheld, the Equity principle was most frequently predicted as the principle that American military officers would view as most fair (54.3% of the time). Lambda did not show a measure of association (.00000), but Phi (.14363), Cramer's V (.14363), and Contingency Coefficient (.14217) revealed a significantly low level of association. Therefore, even though the difference between choices of principle was significant, the association was weak. Mode of allocation for negative resources does not account for a measurable 29

PAGE 38

amount of variation in choice of principle that respondents believed that the American Military officers in the situation described in this study would view as most fair. How American Respondents Feel Russian Military Officers View Fairness When we asked American respondents to select the principle that they thought Russian military officers would view as most fair, we did not find significance for mode of delivery only. And even when we controlled for resource sign (positive versus negative resource), there still was no significance. Therefore, mode of allocation does not have an effect on how American respondents feel Russian military officers view fairness for either positive or negative resources. The Importance ofFairness to Citizens Versus The Importance of Fairness to Army Personnel in the United States and in Russia In order to find out if American respondents felt that there was a difference in the importance of fairness between the citizens and the arm:y personnel in the area identified in their version of the questionnaire, 2-sample t-tests for paired samples were conducted. Respondents were asked to mark their opinion on a 7-point scale, with a mark closer to 7 indicating that importance considerations are extremely important, and markings closer to 1, are extremely unimportant. The mean for the army personnel in the U.S. was 3.77 and the mean for U.S. civilians was 6.32. The 30

PAGE 39

mean for the Russian military was 6.55, while the mean for Russian civilians was 6.28. Therefore, respondents felt that fairness considerations were nearly twice as important to citizens overall than they are to army personnel overall. 31

PAGE 40

CHAPTER3 DISCUSSION In this study, disregarding the effect of mode of accomplishing the outcome leads to the conclusion that equality was considered the most fair principle for positive while the need and equality principles were about equally fair for negative outcome allocations (see Tables 2.1 and 2.2). Thus, it may seem that people make very similar justice judgments in the contexts of positive and negative outcome allocation. However, an examination of the modes in which positive and negative outcomes were accomplished (see Tables 2.3 and 2.4) generates a more qualified picture and provides us with a clue to why different studies arrive at different conclusions as to the impact of sign of outcome allocation on justice conceptions. A close look at the data in Table 2.3 clearly reveals that it is possible to arrive at two contradictory conclusions: (1) positive and negative outcome allocations are guided by different justice principles, and/or result in different fairness evaluations of a particular allocation principle, and (2) positive and negative outcome allocations are guided by the same justice principle, and/or result in similar fairness evaluations of a particular allocation principle. Both conclusions are, of course, equally accurate 32

PAGE 41

and legitimate. Obviously, the conclusion we arrive at (or the result of a particular empirical research study) will frequently be determined by the particular modes of accomplishing positive and negative allocations that are selected for comparison. When analyzing the effect of sign of outcome allocation on the fairness evaluation of a particular allocation principle, say the equity or need principles, Table 2.5 shows that ifthe withhold mode is compared to either of the two modes by which negative outcomes may be accomplished, sign shows no significant effect on evaluations. However, if the deliver benefit mode is compared to the withholding benefit mode, sign of outcome allocation is shown to have significant effects on evaluations of both principles! In the case of the equality principle, justice evaluations are always affected by sign of outcome allocation, regardless of the modes compared. In this study, equality received the highest endorsement of the three principles for positive and the need principle the highest for negative outcome allocation (Table 2.3). Mode of outcome allocation made no difference in the context of positive (Table 2.5). However, in the case of negative allocation the need principle received the highest endorsement only in the withhold benefit condition, while there was a tie between the need and equality principles for the deliver-harm mode of allocation. More striking effects of sign of outcome allocation were observed, when the three allocation principles were rated along seven-point scales 33

PAGE 42

(Table 2.1) in terms of how fair respondents perceived them to be in the contexts of the two modes by which, in this study, both positive and negative allocations were accomplished. We can now sum up the findings from this study into a relatively concise answer to the question whether or not an allocation principle was seen by our respondents as equally fair or unfair for positive and negative outcome allocation. (1) The equality principle was always rated as more fair for positive than for negative outcome allocation, regardless of the mode that represented each sign. (equality was never seen as equally fair for positive and negative allocations, or as more fair for negative than for positive ones.) And as previously mentioned, equality was seen as nearly perfectly fair for both modes of positive outcome allocation. (2) The need principle was considered equally fair for positive and negative outcome allocations, with one exception: when negative outcome allocation was represented by the withholding of a good mode and positive allocation by the delivery of a good mode, this principle was seen as more fair (or, more accurately, less unfair) for negative allocation. (The need principle was never considered more fair for positive than for negative outcome allocation.) Again, the need principle was not considered fair for any mode of accomplishing outcome allocation. (3) Finally, judging from the findings of this study, the equity principle is likely to be judged as more fair for negative than for positive outcome allocation under two circumstances: (a) when the delivery of harm and delivery of benefit 34

PAGE 43

modes are pitted against each other, and (b) when the withholding a benefit mode is compared to the delivery of benefit mode. On the other hand, equity turned out to be seen as equally fair for positive and negative outcome allocations in two cases: (a) when the withholding a harm and withholding a benefit modes are pitted against each other, and (b) when the withholding a harm mode is compared to the delivery of harm mode. With the above considerations in mind, it is easy to see that the modes of outcome accomplishment must be distinguished from each other and sorted before we understand why different studies end up with different conclusions as to the differences or similarities between positive and negative outcome allocation. As Table 2.1 indicates, this study found that there are differences between the delivery and the withholding modes within the positive outcome allocation category (at least for fairness ratings of the equity and need principles. That is, intra-sign differences were found for positive outcome allocation; however, no such differences occurred in the case of negative outcome allocations. Thus, at least for positive outcome allocation, it matters which mode of outcome allocation is selected, as different modes may produce different results. American respondents' belief that fairness is about half as important to the military than to the civilians in both countries could reflect the sentiment that Americans (at least the American respondents in this study) feel toward the military. 35

PAGE 44

This could very well indicate a lack of trust in decision makers or a belief that decisions are likely to be made based on criteria other than fairness. It would be interesting to conduct a cross-cultural study by duplicating this study in Russia, employing Russian university students as subjects in the investigation. Would Russian students' perceptions of justice be the same or different than American students' perceptions of justice? Would Russian student's predictions of how their military personnel view fairness be the same or different than the way in which they predict American military personnel view fairness? And finally, would Russian students believe that the citizens in both countries differ from their respective armies and from citizens in other countries? In this study, additional questions were raised. For example, "What really constitutes a positive outcome?" In other words, "What would be the benefit of knowing that one has been exposed to dangerous levels of radiation unless there existed a "cure" or "treatment" for radiation exposure? And if such a treatment were available, would antidotes only be available in limited supplies so as to accommodate only certain groups? Perhaps respondents were hoping that in this situation at least the children, the elderly, and the ill could be saved-but is this rationale really "fair"? If so, who would be left to care for this vulnerable and "needy" group? If one group is to be spared, should it be the "strongest" who might discover an antidote that would be available to everyone in the future? Finally, if no 36

PAGE 45

known cure or treatment existed, should not everyone be told that they are doomed? Additional studies can be designed to answer additional questions of importance to positive and negative resource allocation, incorporating, (1) other resources (i.e .. status, love, services, money), (2) other institutional contexts (e.g., intimate or social relationships), and (3) other study methods. For example, a small token can be allocated by either a participant or a third party in a game that takes place in a scientific experiment within a recreational setting (unlike allocating information in a possible life and death situation presented in this vignette study). The possibilities are many, considering the choices among resources that are being allocated in society everyday, within different institutional contexts and under varied circumstances. 37

PAGE 46

APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRES 37

PAGE 47

Now, please answer the following questions: (1) If you could only choose one of the above suggestions, which one would you prefer to be put into action? Please circle your choice: (I) (II) (III) (2) If you could only choose one suggestion, which one do you think ought to be put into action? Please circle your choice: (I) (II) (Ill) (3) If the final decision rested with you, which one of the three suggestions would you actually put into action? Please circle your choice: (I) (II) (III) (4) If you wanted to act as fairly as possible, which one of the three suggestions would you follow? Please circle your choice: (I) (II) (III) (5) Which one of the three suggestions do you think is the least unfair? Please circle your choice: (I) (II) (III) ( 6) Do you think that fairness considerations should have a greater influence than any other factor on decision making in this situation? 1: YES 2: NO If you replied YES to question 6. skip question 7 38

PAGE 48

(7) What factors(s) other than fairness would be important to consider? How fair do you think each one of the three suggestions (1, II, Ill) is? Example a: if you think a given suggestion is "perfectly fair", place your check mark like this: Perfectly fair '"'-I .V-'---'I::..__....::I'----_,1,____---'I::..___I:o..__........::....l _I Totally unfair 7 6 54 3 2 1 Example b: If you think a given suggestion is "neither fair nor unfair", place your check like this: Perfectly fair I I I.V I I I I I Totally unfair 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Now, please place a check mark (that correctly reflects your opinion about suggestions I, II, and III on each one of the three five-point scales below: (8) (I) = Perfectly fair Totally unfair 7 6 54 3 21 (9) (II) = Perfectly fair I I I I I I I I Totally unfair 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (10) (Til)= Perfectly fair -=-1----"-I--"""""'I--"""""'I __ --=I----=I'--_I:o..___I Totally unfair 7 6 54 3 2 1 39

PAGE 49

(11) When you answered the questions about fairness, from whose point of view (from whose perspective) did you think about fairness?: 1. __ the army personnel 2. the civilians 3 __ both categories of people (12) \How important do you think it is to let fairness considerations determine the course of action in the situation described above? Extremely important I I I I I I I I 7 6 54 3 2 1 Extremely unimportant In your opinion, how important would the army personnel and the civilians in the area think it is to let fairness considerations determine the course of action in this situation? Please place a check mark in the space that correctly reflects your opinion on each one of the two seven-point scales below: (13) The Army: Extremely important (14) The civilians: I I I I I I I I 7 6 54 3 2 1 Extremely I I I I I I I I important 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 40 Extremely unimportant Extremely unimportant

PAGE 50

of the three suggestions (1, II or ill) do you think American and Russian citizens and military officers would view as the most fair suggestion? Please circle your choice for each one of the following four categories: (15) American citizens: (I) (II) (Ill) (16) Russian citizens: (I) (II) (ill) (17) American military officers: (I) (ll) (III) (18) Russian military officers: (I) (II) (III) Which one of the three suggestions (1, II or ill) do you think would actually be put into action in the United States and in Russia? Please circle your choice for each one of the following categories (19) in the United States: (20) in Russia: (I) (II) (III) (I) (II) (ill) (21) As a general rule, what principle of fairness do you think should guide the decisions and actions of your government in its distribution of benefits and burdens to the people? Please select one of the following alternatives: 1. __ According to a people's needs 2. __ Acc. to.people's efforts to make a contribution to the country 3 __ Ace. to people's abilities to make contributions to the country 4. __ Acc. to people's actual contributions to the country S. __ Acc. to people's power 6. __ Acc. to people's political preference 7 __ Equally to everyone 41

PAGE 51

(22) As a general rule, what principle of fairness do you think should guide decisions and actions within a family when benefits and burdens are distributed?: Please select one of the following alternatives: !. __ According to a family member's needs 2. __ Acc. to a family member's efforts to help the family 3. __ Acc. to a family member's abilities to help the family 4. __ Acc. to a family member's actual help to the family 5. __ Acc. to a family member's power 6. __ Acc. to a family member's political preference 7 __ Equally to every family member 8. Other ----------------------------------------------(23) One should be equally fair to animals as one is to people Strongly Agree I I I I I I I I Strongly Disagree 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (24) One should be equally fair to people in other countries as one is to people in one's own country Strongly Agree I I I I I I I I Strongly Disagree 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 42

PAGE 52

Finally, in order to make the previous information meaningful, we would like to ask a few questions about yourself: (25) How old will you be in 1994 ?: (26) Are you a man or a woman?: (27) How many years of college/university have you completed?: (29) What is your marital status? (29) How many children do you have?: (30) What kind of attitude do you have toward the military? (31) Have you served in the armed forces (the military)? (32) Has any member of your immediate family served in the armed forces? 43 __years old 1. Man 2. Woman Years 1. Never married 2. __ Married/cohabiting 3 __ Separated/divorced/widowed 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. children Favorable Unfavorable Yes No Yes No

PAGE 53

(33) Do you have a political preference I affiliation? 1. None 2. Leftist (34) Are you in favor of the production of nuclear weapons?: (35) Do you believe that the production of nuclear weapons is necessarv?: (36) Do you believe that the production of nuclear weapons is desirable?: (3 7) Who do you think should make decisions about the production of nuclear weapons? Choose one or more of the following alternatives: (38) Who do you think should make decisions about the use of nuclear weapons? Choose one or more of the following alternatives: 3. 44 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. Moderate Yes No Yes No Yes No 4. __ Rightist l. __ the government 2. __ the general public 3. nuclear scientists 4. __ the military 5. __ 0thers, namely ___ l. __ the government 2. __ the general public 3. nuclear scientists 4. __ the military S. __ Others, namely ___

PAGE 54

(39) In what countrv have you spent most of your life?: ( 40) Can you explain what you mean by the term "fairness"? Try to express yourself as briefly and as fully as possible. [It might help if you think in terms of some questions like: "What does it mean to treat another person "fairly"?; "How can I determine whether or not I or someone else is treated in a fair manner?"; or "In what situations do I feel unfairly treated?"] 45

PAGE 55

REFERENCES Foa, Edna B., and Foa Uriel G. 1971 Interpersonal and Economic Resources." Science 171:345-351 Finch, Janet !988 "Research Note: The Vignette Technique In Survey Research." Sociology 21(1):105-114. Kayser, E., and H. Lamm 1980 "Input Integration and Input Weighing in Decisions on Allocations of Gains and Losses." European Journal of Social Psychology 10: 1-15. Lamm, H., and E. Kayser 1978 "The Allocation Of Monetary Gain and Loss Following Dyadic Performance: The Weight Given to Effort and Ability Under Conditions oflow and High Intra-Dyadic Attraction.: European Journal of Social Psycholoy 8:275-278 Marsh, C. 1982 The Survey Method. London: Allen and Unwin. Meeker, B.F., and G.C. Elliott 1987 "Counting the Costs: Equity and the Allocation of Negative Group Products." Social Psychology Quarterly 50:7-15. Murphy Berman, V.,J. J. Berman, P, P. Singh, A. Pachauri and P. Kumer 1984 "Factors Affecting Allocation to Needy and Meritorious Recipients: A Cross-Cultural Comparison. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology and Policy 46:1267-72. Tomblom, Kjell 1988 "Positive and Negative Allocations: A Typology and a Model for Conflicting Justice Principles." Advances In Group Processes 5:141-168 Tomblom, Kjell and Johnsson Dan R. 1985 "Subrules of the Equality and Contribution Principles: Their Perceived Fairness In Distribution and Retribution." Social Psychology Quarterly 48(3):249-261.

PAGE 56

. Tomblom, Kjell 1988 "Positive and Negative Outcome Allocation: Age Strata Differences in Justice Evaluations".