In-group Bias, Aversion to Inequity, and Resource Distribution: Implications for Social Justice
Sesgo intragrupal, aversión a la inequidad y distribución de recursos implicaciones para la justicia social
Article Sidebar
PDF (Español (España))
FLIP
Los autores que publican en la Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología están de acuerdo con los siguientes términos:
- El Autor o los autores, desde que presenta(n) a consideración de esta revista su manuscrito, esta(n) informado(s) acerca de la política de Acceso Abierto, como condición indisociable de publicación, lo que significa que ni él(los), ni la revista han de percibir ingreso alguno por concepto de la lectura de resúmenes o del artículo completo, tampoco por su uso o explotación para generar nuevo conocimiento o para desarrollar aprendizajes alrededor de la obra.
- Los autores conservan los derechos de autor y garantizan a la revista el derecho de ser la primera publicación del trabajo, al igual que licenciado bajo una Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacionalque permite que permite a terceros utilizar lo publicado, siempre que se haga mención a la autoría del trabajo y la primera publicación en esta revista, no se utilice con fines comerciales y que las obras que se deriven del artículo se compartan en iguales condiciones.
- Los conceptos y opiniones expresados en los artículos son responsabilidad exclusiva de los autores y no comprometen a la Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología ni a la Corporación Universitaria Iberoamericana. Los contenidos de esta revista se distribuyen bajo licencia de tipo Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional, la cual exige el debido reconocimiento de las obras y cuyos términos se encuentran en: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.es
- La Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología es una revista de acceso abierto, por lo que tanto el proceso editorial como los contenidos publicados están disponibles para todos los usuarios sin cargo alguno: la Revista no realiza cobro alguno por acceso, lectura o descarga de contenidos ni por procesos o actividades de la editorial con fines de publicación.
Main Article Content
The aim of this article is to explore the relationship between inequity aversion, resource distribution, and intragroup bias in schoolchildren from a developmental perspective, as well as to establish the relationship between socio-educational variables and aversive responses. A total of 302 individuals aged between 11 and 23 years old (M = 16.45, SD = 2.95) participated in the study, engaging in a task assessing acceptance or rejection of resource distributions conditioned by the presence or absence of intragroup bias. The results indicate that intragroup bias generates significant differences in resource distribution; there is a negative correlation between aversion to advantageous inequity and the number of coins offered. Participants prefer to maintain their gains rather than distribute them in situations of inequity. This pattern suggests that interpersonal relationships influence resource distribution and reflect an adaptive behavior aiming to maintain cooperation and order within the group. Furthermore, a relationship was found between socioeconomic status and low aversion to disadvantageous inequity in the presence of intrasocial bias. In conclusion, it is proposed that intragroup bias influences resource distribution. At a social level, the failure to question whether a resource distribution is fair or not leads to the maintenance of inequity and inequality. The willingness of individuals to accept any outcome in order to obtain a gain implies a lack of critical thinking regarding justice.
Downloads
Publication Facts
Reviewer profiles N/A
Author statements
- Editor & editorial board
- profiles
- Academic society
- Bogotá: Corporación Universitaria Iberoamericana
- Publisher
- Bogotá: Corporación Universitaria Iberoamericana
To learn about these publication facts, click 
PF is maintained by the Public Knowledge Project
Article Details
Bardsley, N. (2008). Dictator game giving: altruism or artefact?. Experimental Economics, 11(2), 122-133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-007-9172-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-007-9172-2
Binns, R. (2018, January). Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 1-11. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/binns18a.html
Boun My, K., Lampach, N., Lefebvre, M., & Magnani, J. (2018). Effects of gain-loss frames on advantageous inequality aversion. Journal of the Economic Science Association, 4(2), 99-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-018-0057-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40881-018-0057-2
Brosnan, S. F. (2006). Nonhuman species’ reactions to inequity and their implications for fairness. Social Justice Research, 19(2), 153-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00022136 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00022136
Bucca, M. (2016). Merit and blame in unequal societies: Explaining Latin Americans’ beliefs about wealth and poverty. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 44, 98-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2016.02.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2016.02.005
Cohen, J. (1988). Set correlation and contingency tables. Applied psychological measurement, 12(4), 425-434. https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/104317/1/v12n4p425.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168801200410
Corbit, J., McAuliffe, K., Callaghan, T. C., Blake, P. R., & Warneken, F. (2017). Children’s collaboration induces fairness rather than generosity. Cognition, 168, 344-356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.07.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.07.006
DANE. (2023). Tasa de desempleo en Colombia. https://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas-por-tema/mercado-laboral/empleo-y-desempleo#:~:text=Informaci%C3%B3n%20enero%202024,2023%20(13%2C7%25).
Engelmann, J. M., Clift, J. B., Herrmann, E. & Tomasello, M. (2017). Social disappointment explains chimpanzees’ behaviour in the inequity aversion task. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 284(1861), 20171502. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2017.1502 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1502
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/003355399556151 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556151
Friedl, A., Pondorfer, A., & Schmidt, U. (2020). Gender differences in social risk taking. Journal of Economic Psychology, 77, 102182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2019.06.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2019.06.005
Gaither, S. E., Perlin, J. D., & Doan, S. N. (2020). Race, gender, and the development of cross-race egalitarianism. Frontiers in Psychology, 11:1525. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01525 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01525
Gómez, M. S., Galvis-Aponte, L. A., & Royuela, V. (2015). Calidad de vida laboral en Colombia: un índice multidimensional difuso. Research Institute of Applied Economics. Universitat de Barcelona.
Grocke, P., Rossano, F., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Procedural justice in children: preschoolers accept unequal resource distributions if the procedure provides equal opportunities. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 140, 197–210. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.07.00 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.07.008
Harris, A., Young, A., Hughson, L., Green, D., Doan, S. N., Hughson, E., & Reed, C. L. (2020). Perceived relative social status and cognitive load influence acceptance of unfair offers in the Ultimatum Game. PLOS ONE, 15(1), e0227717. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227717 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227717
Hayashi, H. (2020). Do 5- and 6-year-old children attempt to appear to others?. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 191(2-3), 1-9. doi: 10.1080/00221325.2020.1738321 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2020.1738321
Hepach, R., Vaish, A., & Tomasello, M. (2013). A new look at children’s prosocial motivation. Infancy, 18(1), 67-90. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-7078.2012.00130.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7078.2012.00130.x
Heuer, L., & Stroessner, S. J. (2011). The multi-value basis of procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 541-553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.01.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.01.007
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 575–604. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135109
McAuliffe, K., Blake, P. R., Kim, G., Wrangham, R. W., & Warneken, F. (2013). Social influences on inequity aversion in children. PloS One, 8(12), e80966. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080966 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080966
Myers, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (2012). Exploring social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oberliessen, L., & Kalenscher, T. (2019). Social and non-social mechanisms of inequity aversion in non-human animals. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 13(133), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00133 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00133
O'Driscoll, D., Taylor, L. K., & Dautel, J. B. (2018). Intergroup resource distribution among children living in segregated neighborhoods amid protracted conflict. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 24(4), 464 – 474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pac0000348 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000348
Qiu, X., Yu, J., Li, T., Cheng, N., & Zhu, L. (2017). Children’s inequity aversion in procedural justice context: A comparison of advantageous and disadvantageous inequity. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1855. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01855 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01855
Rakoczy, H., Kaufmann, M., & Lohse, K. (2016). Young children understand the normative force of standards of equal resource distribution. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 150, 396-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.05.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.05.015
Renno, M. P., & Shutts, K. (2015). Children’s social category-based giving and its correlates: Expectations and preferences. Developmental Psychology, 51, 533–543. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038819 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038819
Rutland, A., Killen, M., & Abrams, D. (2010). A new social-cognitive developmental perspective on prejudice: The interplay between morality and group identity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 279–291. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369468 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369468
Schokkaert, E., & Tarroux, B. (2021). Empirical research on ethical preferences: how popular is prioritarianism?. GATE WP. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3766216 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3766216
Strangor, C., Jhangiani, R., & Tarry, H. (2022). Principles of Social Psychology (1st international H5P edition). BCcampus. https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/
Takagishi, H., Kameshima, S., Schug, J., Koizumi, M., & Yamagishi, T. (2010). Theory of mind enhances preference for fairness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 105(1-2), 130-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.09.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2009.09.005
Tsoi, L., & McAuliffe, K. (2019). Individual differences in theory of mind predict inequity aversion in children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(4) 559–571. doi:10.1177/0146167219867957 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219867957
Vale, G. L., & Brosnan, S. F. (2017). Inequity Aversion. In J. Vonk & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1084-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_1084-1
Warner, C. H., Fortin, M., & Melkonian, T. (2024). When are we more ethical? A review and categorization of the factors influencing dual-process ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 189(4), 843-882. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05281-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05281-0
Williams, A., & Moore, C. (2014). Exploring disadvantageous inequality aversion in children: how cost and discrepancy influence decision-making. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01088 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01088
Williams, A., & Moore, C. (2016). A longitudinal exploration of advantageous and disadvantageous inequality aversion in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 152, pp. 294-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.07.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.07.006
Yu, J., Zhu, L., & Leslie, A. (2016). Children’s sharing behavior in mini-dictator games: the role of in-group favoritism and theory of mind. Child Development, 87(6), p. 1747-1757. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12635 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12635
Zin, G., Escobal, G., Esteves, G., & Goyos, C. (2015). Sharing Game: Influence of gender, cost of response, history of reinforcement, and amount of money in the resource distribution of undergraduate students. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 15(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101071 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101071
