Is fairness intuitive? An experiment accounting for subjective utility differences under time pressure

Abstract

Evidence from response time studies and time pressure experiments has led several authors to conclude that "fairness is intuitive". In light of conflicting findings we provide theoretical arguments showing under which conditions an increase in "fairness" due to time pressure indeed provides unambiguous evidence in favor of the "fairness is intuitive" hypothesis. Drawing on recent applications of the Drift Diffusion Model (Krajbich et al., 2015a), we demonstrate how the subjective difficulty of making a choice affects decisions under time pressure and time delay, thereby making an unambiguous interpretation of time pressure effects contingent on the choice situation. To explore our theoretical considerations and to retest the "fairness is intuitive" hypothesis, we analyze choices in two-person binary dictator and prisoner's dilemma games under time pressure or time delay. In addition, we manipulate the subjective difficulty of choosing the fair relative to the selfish option. Our main finding is that time pressure does not consistently promote fairness in situations where this would be predicted after accounting for choice difficulty. Hence, our results cast doubt on the hypothesis that "fairness is intuitive".

Contextualised strong reciprocity explains selfless cooperation despite selfish intuitions and weak social heuristics

“…Two alternative interpretations have been offered for the RT analysis of cooperation decisions: the earlier argument that fast RTs indicate intuition 16 , 58 , 59 and the more recent view that they reflect lack of conflict during decision-making due to strong preference for one option over others 60 . While it may be difficult to disentangle these two influences in a correlational analysis 60 , 61 , our RT analysis is consistent with the experimental findings in Study 2 of intuitive selfishness in M and modest deliberated free-riding in P. Moreover, we do not find clear evidence for decision conflict accounts predicting that faster decisions are more extreme (contributing nothing or everything) 62 or predicting that TP increases random decision error 61 , 63 , 64 or arguing for congruency of choices with preferences 65 , 66 (see Supplementary Materials for details, including a revised decision conflict account model consistent with our data).…”

How to Solve the Time Dilemma? The Influence of Team Temporal Leadership on Team Innovation Performance

“…Undoubtedly, TTL can improve the way that teams and members allocate time resources. According to the resource allocation theory, the effective allocation of time resources can help team members better cope with TP (Merkel and Lohse, 2019;Sheng et al, 2019). Although scholars have studied the boundary conditions of the impact of TP on creativity from the perspectives of personality traits, job demands-resource model, and leadership.…”

Cognitive processes underlying distributional preferences: a response time study

“…The evidence based on studies using RTs and the manipulation of cognitive processes is mixed so far (Chen and Krajbich 2018). Some studies find that social motives are more intuitive since prosocial decisions are quicker than selfish decisions and people tend to be more prosocial under time pressure or cognitive load (Cappelen et al 2016;Cappelletti et al 2011;Cornelissen et al 2011;Lotito et al 2013;Nielsen et al 2014;Peysakhovich and Rand 2016;Rand et al 2012;Rubinstein 2007;Schulz et al 2014), while other studies find that the selfish motive is more intuitive (Duffy and Smith 2014;Lohse et al 2017;Merkel and Lohse 2019;Piovesan and Wengström 2009;Tinghög et al 2013;Verkoeijen and Bouwmeester 2014).…”