סמינר בהתנהגות ארגונית

ד״ר שהם חושן-הלל, האוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים

 People respond negatively to inequity – unequal pay for equal work. Traditionally, it has been argued that inequity aversion stems from the belief that rewarding people unequally for equal effort is inherently unfair (Adams, 1965; Fehr & Schmidt, 1999). According to this inequity account, people’s fairness concerns are focused on inequity per se, and they should therefore try to avoid any kind of inequity, and especially disadvantageous inequity.

Contrary to this view, I argue that people avoid inequity mainly to avoid the appearance of partiality; they will accept inequity if it does not appear partial (Choshen-Hillel, Shaw & Caruso, 2015; Shaw, Choshen-Hillel & Caruso, 2016). I review three recent lines of research, testing the partiality accounts from different perspectives: the decision maker’s point of view, the recipient’s point of view, and a developmental perspective. A series of incentivized lab studies and realistic scenarios with adults and children provide robust evidence for the partiality account: Decision makers were consistently more likely to create inequity when the resulting inequity would put them at a relative disadvantage (and appear impartial) than when it would put others at a relative disadvantage (and appear partial). I discuss the findings in light of theories and studies on inequity aversion and fairness in social psychology, judgment and decision making and behavioral economics.