1. Justice and Fairness Karl Schurter Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science

2. Fairness is not Just Fair derived from “fair play” Different connotations “Das ist nicht fair” Fair implies equity  Equal opportunity  Equal reward

3. The Philosophy of Justice Retributive vs. Distributive Just desert How do we calculate desert? Veil of ignorance

4. Judging an Application Reason does not deliver justice Criteria for desert Weight Achievement or potential

5. Assumptions of the Veil of Ignorance There is only one just outcome Desert is calculable Not applicable to real problems Can be simulated in the laboratory

6. Procedural Justice Clearly defined rules Informed consent Symmetric information Equal opportunity

7. Hypotheses Justice and fairness are different motivational factors They have different impacts on economic decision-making

8. Experimental Design Dictator Game  Two players: A and B  Endowment given the pair  Player A must unilaterally allocate the money Informed consent

11. Property Rights Player A has property rights Method of entitlement affects allocation distribution  Random  Quiz  Specialized quiz

12. Treatments Random (Control) George Mason trivia quiz Seniority Die Roll

13. Random (Control) Computer pairs players Game starts immediately

14. George Mason Trivia Quiz Quiz begins Quizzes are scored and ranked Top player is made a player A  Paired with last Tie goes to the player who finished first

16. George Mason Trivia Quiz (Cont’d) Confounds justice and fairness Implications in other experimental research  Inequity aversion  Altruism

17. Die Roll Emphasize fair procedure Players choose even or odd after instructions Whoever guessed correctly is Player A

19. Seniority Emphasize justice Ranked by credit hours Draws on other campus privileges (housing, parking, course selection, etc.)

20. Expected Results No formal theory prediction Random treatment will include larger gifts Impact of justice and fairness varies across cultures