Not taking responsibility: Equity trumps efficiency in allocation decisions

Tom Gordon-Hecker, Daniela Rosensaft-Eshel, Andrea Pittarello, Shaul Shalvi, Yoella Bereby-Meyer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

22 Scopus citations


When allocating resources, equity and efficiency may conflict. When resources are scarce and cannot be distributed equally, one may choose to destroy resources and reduce societal welfare to maintain equity among its members. We examined whether people are averse to inequitable outcomes per se or to being responsible for deciding how inequity should be implemented. Three scenario-based experiments and one incentivized experiment revealed that participants are inequity responsibility averse: when asked to decide which of the 2 equally deserving individuals should receive a reward, they rather discarded the reward than choosing who will get it. This tendency diminished significantly when participants had the possibility to use a random device to allocate the reward. The finding suggests that it is more difficult to be responsible for the way inequity is implemented than to create inequity per se.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)771-775
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Experimental Psychology: General
Issue number6
StatePublished - 1 Jun 2017


  • Decision-making
  • Efficiency
  • Equity
  • Resource allocation
  • Responsibility

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Psychology (all)
  • Developmental Neuroscience


Dive into the research topics of 'Not taking responsibility: Equity trumps efficiency in allocation decisions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this