Abstract
In customer or labor markets raising prices or cutting wages is perceived as unfair if it results from the exploitation of shifts in demands. In a series of manipulations we show that adding an alternative to the original choice set alters the perception of fairness of the final outcome. Adding a worse alternative lowers the perception of unfairness, whereas adding a better alternative raises the perception of unfairness. These findings supplemented with existing experimental evidence cast doubt on purely outcome-based theories of fairness and suggest that fairness perceptions are highly manipulable.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Inequality, Welfare and Income Distribution |
| Subtitle of host publication | Experimental Approaches |
| Publisher | JAI Press |
| Pages | 43-53 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| ISBN (Print) | 0762311134, 9780762311132 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 1 Jan 2004 |
Publication series
| Name | Research on Economic Inequality |
|---|---|
| Volume | 11 |
| ISSN (Print) | 1049-2585 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Sociology and Political Science
- Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'HOW MANIPULABLE ARE FAIRNESS PERCEPTIONS? THE EFFECT OF ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver