Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects

Date of Degree

6-2025

Document Type

Doctoral Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy

Program

Psychology

Advisor

Ana Gantman

Committee Members

Hannah Nam

Matthew Lindauer

Michael Brownstein

Subject Categories

Social Psychology

Keywords

morality, structural unfairness, decision-making, blame, punishment, inequality

Abstract

People tend to explain wrongdoing as the result of a bad actor or bad system. In five studies (including U.S. online convenience samples, and one U.S. census-matched sample), we tested whether the way people understand unfairness affects how they sanction it. In Study 1 (N = 370), people interpreted unfair offers in an economic game mostly as the result of a bad actor (vs. unfair rules), which predicted costly punishment of individuals (vs. changing unfair rules). In Studies 2 (N = 500) and 3, (N = 470, census-matched on age, gender, and ethnicity in the U.S), we found that people paid to change the rules for the final round of the game (vs. punished individuals), when they were randomly assigned a bad system (vs. bad actor) explanation for prior identical unfair offers. Finally, in Studies 4 (N = 404) and 5 (N = 401), we found that people preferred to explain unfairness as the result of both a bad actor and bad system. Across Studies 4 and 5, explaining unfairness as the result of both a bad actor and bad system led to greater willingness to change the rules of the game, even when the outcome was uncertain (Study 5). Finally, we found that the punishment decisions were not driven by retributive motives, as people preferred system-level change even after they had already punished the Allocator. Together, this research suggests that people's tendency to understand unfairness as the result of both a bad actor and bad system, not one or the other, is associated with more willingness to pay to change the system.

Download

Share

COinS