Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The allocation of scarce public resources such as transplant organs and limited public funding involves a trade-off between equality—equal access and efficiency—maximizing total benefit. The current research explores how preferences shift when allocation decisions involve human lives versus when they do not. Fifteen experiments test this question using a variety of allocation scenarios including allocation of lifesaving medical aid, money, road construction, vaccines, and other resources. The results consistently show an increased preference for efficiency, when the allocation involves saving human lives, and equality, when the allocation involves outcomes with other consequences. We found no preference shift when stakes were manipulated in allocations where lives were not on the line, suggesting that the effect cannot be explained by lifesaving resources simply being higher stakes. These findings suggest a unique preference for efficiency for allocations involving life-and-death consequences that has implications for designing and conveying public resource allocation policies.

Keywords

applied social psychology judgment and decision-making justice

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bazerman

M. H.

White

S. B.

Loewenstein

G. F.

(1995). Perceptions of fairness in interpersonal and individual choice situations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 39–43.

Colby

DeWitt

Chapman

G. B.

(2015). Grouping promotes equality: The effect of recipient grouping on allocation of limited medical resources. Psychological Science, 26, 1084–1089. doi:10.1177/0956797615583978

Conlon

D. E.

Porter

C. O. L. H.

Parks

J. M.

(2004). The fairness of decision rules. Journal of Management, 30, 329–349. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2003.04.001

Desvousges

W. H.

Reed Johnson

Dunford

R. W.

Hudson

S. P.

Nicole Wilson

Boyle

K. J.

(1993). Measuring natural resource damages with contingent valuation. In Hausman

J. A.

(Ed.), Contingent valuation: A critical assessment (pp. 91–164). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.

DeVoe

S. E.

Iyengar

S. S.

(2010). Medium of exchange matters: What’s fair for goods is unfair for money. Psychological Science, 21, 159–162. doi:10.1177/0956797609357749

Gordon-Hecker

Choshen-Hillel

Shalvi

Bereby-Meyer

(2017). Resource allocation decisions: When do we sacrifice efficiency in the name of equity? In Li

Tracer

D. P.

(Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on fairness, equity, and justice (pp. 93–105). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.

Hochschild

J. L.

(1981). What’s fair? American beliefs about distributive justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hoffman

McCabe

Smith

V. L.

(1996). Social distance and other-regarding behavior in dictator games. The American Economic Review, 86, 653–660.

DeWitt

(2017). Equality by principle, efficiency by practice: How policy description affects allocation preference. In Li

Tracer

D. P.

(Eds.), Interdisciplinary perspectives on fairness, equity, and justice (pp. 67–91). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International.

10.

Vietri

Galvani

A. P.

Chapman

G. B.

(2010). How do people value life? Psychological Science, 21, 163–167. doi:10.1177/0956797609357707

11.

Martin

Harder

(1994). Bread and roses: Justice and the distribution of financial and socioemotional rewards in organizations. Social Justice Research, 7, 241–264. doi:10.1007/bf02334833

12.

Messick

D. M.

(1993). Equality as a decision heuristic Psychological perspectives on justice: Theory and applications (pp. 11–31). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

13.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14.

Stame

Carmeron

(2016, 10 26). All the reported cases of Zika in the United Sttates. The Washington Post. Retrievd from https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/us-zika-cases/

15.

Tetlock

P. E.

Kristel

O. V.

Elson

S. B.

Green

M. C.

Lerner

J. S.

(2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 853–870. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.78.5.853

16.

Tornblom

K. Y.

Foa

U. G.

(1983). Choice of a distribution principle: Crosscultural evidence on the effects of resources. Acta Sociologica, 26, 161–173. doi:10.1177/000169938302600204

17.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

18.

Ubel

Baron

Asch

D. A.

(2001). Preference for equity as a framing effect. Medical Decision Making, 21, 180–189. doi:10.1177/0272989x0102100303

19.

Ubel

P. A.

DeKay

M. L.

Baron

Asch

D. A.

(1996). Cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting of budget constraints—Is it equitable? New England Journal of Medicine, 334, 1174–1177. doi:10.1056/NEJM199605023341807

20.

Ubel

P. A.

Loewenstein

(1995). The efficacy and equity of retransplantation: An experimental survey of public attitudes. Health Policy, 34, 145–151.

21.

Ubel

P. A.

Loewenstein

(1996). Distributing scarce livers: The moral reasoning of the general public. Social Science & Medicine, 42, 1049–1055. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(95)00216-2

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.35 MB

Efficiency for Lives,Equality for Everything Else: How Allocation Preference Shifts Across Domains

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material