Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 659–674 | Cite as

Equality, Efficiency, and Sufficiency: Responding to Multiple Parameters of Distributive Justice During Charitable Distribution

  • Colin J. Palmer
  • Bryan Paton
  • Linda Barclay
  • Jakob Hohwy
Article

Abstract

Distributive justice decision making tends to require a trade off between different valued outcomes. The present study tracked computer mouse cursor movements in a forced-choice paradigm to examine for tension between different parameters of distributive justice during the decision-making process. Participants chose between set meal distributions, to third parties, that maximised either equality (the evenness of the distribution) or efficiency (the total number of meals distributed). Across different formulations of these dilemmas, responding was consistent with the notion that individuals tend to base decisions in part on the magnitude of these parameters. In addition, dilemmas associated with inconsistent responding across the sample tended to elicit the greatest spatial deviation of the cursor, potentially reflecting dilemma difficulty. One interpretation of these results is that individuals value equality and efficiency in such a way that moral dilemmas are resolved by comparing the perceived value of these qualitatively different parameters, consistent with a value pluralistic framework of decision making. A post-hoc analysis indicated that individuals also incorporated sufficiency concerns during distributive justice decision making. The results are discussed in relation to political philosophy.

Supplementary material

13164_2013_157_MOESM1_ESM.doc (120 kb)
ESM 1(DOC 119 KB)

References

  1. Burr, D., and D. Alais. 2006. Combining visual and auditory information. Progress in Brain Research 155: 243–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Frankfurt, H. 1987. Equality as a moral ideal. Ethics 98: 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Freeman, J.B., and N. Ambady. 2009. Motions of the hand expose the partial and parallel activation of stereotypes. Psychological Science 20: 1183–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Freeman, J.B., and N. Ambady. 2010. MouseTracker: software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behavior Research Methods 42: 226–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Freeman, J.B., R. Dale, and T.A. Farmer. 2011. Hand in motion reveals mind in motion. Frontiers in Psychology 2: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Frohlich, N., J.A. Oppenheimer, and C.L. Eavey. 1987. Choices of principles of distributive justice in experimental groups. American Journal of Political Science 31: 606–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hsu, M., C. Anen, and S.R. Quartz. 2008. The right and the good: distributive justice and neural encoding of equity and efficiency. Science 320: 1092–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Knoch, D., A. Pascual-Leone, K. Meyer, V. Treyer, and E. Fehr. 2006. Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex. Science 314: 829–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McKinstry, C., R. Dale, and M.J. Spivey. 2008. Action dynamics reveal parallel competition in decision making. Psychological Science 19: 22–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Miller, D. 1992. Distributive justice: what the people think. Ethics 102: 555–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Palmer, C.J., B. Paton, T.T. Ngo, R.H. Thomson, J. Hohwy, and S.M. Miller. 2013. Individual differences in moral behaviour: a role for response to risk and uncertainty? Neuroethics 6: 97–103.Google Scholar
  12. Phan, K.L., T.D. Wager, S.F. Taylor, and I. Liberzon. 2004. Functional neuroimaging studies of human emotions. CNS Spectrums 9: 258–266.Google Scholar
  13. Rohrbaugh, J., G. McClelland, and R. Quinn. 1980. Measuring the relative importance of utilitarian and egalitarian values: a study of individual differences about fair distribution. Journal of Applied Psychology 65: 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sanfey, A.G., J.K. Rilling, J.A. Aronson, L.E. Nystrom, and J.D. Cohen. 2003. The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science 300: 1755–1758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tabibnia, G., A.B. Satpute, and M.D. Lieberman. 2008. The sunny side of fairness: preference for fairness activates reward circuitry (and disregarding unfairness activates self-control circuity). Psychological Science 19: 339–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Temkin, L. 1993. Inequality. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  17. Tricomi, E., A. Rangel, C.F. Camerer, and J.P. O’Doherty. 2010. Neural evidence for inequality-averse social preferences. Nature 463: 1089–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Xu K (2003) How has the literature on Gini’s index evolved in the past 80 years? Available via Department of Economics at Dalhousie University Working Papers Archive. http://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:dal:wparch:howgini. Retrieved 5 Dec 2011
  19. Zaki, J., and J.P. Mitchell. 2011. Equitable decision making is associated with neural markers of intrinsic value. PNAS 108: 19761–19766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin J. Palmer
    • 1
  • Bryan Paton
    • 1
    • 2
  • Linda Barclay
    • 3
  • Jakob Hohwy
    • 1
  1. 1.Cognition & Philosophy Lab, Philosophy Department, School of Philosophical, Historical and International StudiesMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  2. 2.School of Psychology & PsychiatryMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  3. 3.Philosophy Department, School of Philosophical, Historical and International StudiesMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations