Judgments regarding the fair division of goods: the impact of verbal versus quantitative descriptions of alternative divisions
Judgments regarding the fair division of goods: the impact of verbal versus quantitative descriptions of alternative divisions
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00355-010-0487-0
复制
发表时间：
2011-07-01
影响因子：
0.9
通讯作者：
Cameron, David
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hurley, Jeremiah;Buckley, Neil J.;Cameron, David
本文使用状态偏好调查来研究公平分配固定供应的不同类型的信息对判断的影响，通过这些信息来描述五个分配原则。这三种类型的信息是定量信息（在现有的研究中占主导地位的方法），只有口头信息，定量和口头信息。这五个分配原则是：接受者之间的平均分配原则、罗尔斯的最大化原则、总利益最大化原则、接受者的平等利益原则和接受者之间的按相对需要分配原则。我们发现重要的信息效应的判断公平分割的两个健康相关的商品（服用止痛药和苹果以获得必需的维生素）：仅基于定量信息的判断与以前的研究一致;改变为口头描述导致原则之间的支持发生显着变化，特别是对TBM原则的支持更大;基于数量和语言信息的判断与仅基于数量信息的判断更接近。判断的模式与假设是一致的，即受试者并不完全理解原则的概念意义（如口头描述的）与其隐含的数量划分之间的关系。我们还发现了对商品（药片与苹果）、样本效应（大学与社区）和性别效应的适度差异判断的证据，并且几乎没有支持非零分配原则的证据。
This article uses a stated-preference survey to investigate the impact on judgments regarding the fair division of a fixed supply of a good of differing types of information by which to describe five distributional principles. The three types of information are quantitative information only (the predominant approach in existing studies), verbal information only, and both quantitative and verbal information. The five distributional principles are equal division among recipients, Rawlsian maximin, total benefit maximization (TBM), equal benefit (EB) for recipients, and allocation according to relative need (RN) among recipients. We find important informational effects on judgments of the fair division of each of two health-related goods (pain-relief pills and apples consumed to obtain an essential vitamin): judgments based on quantitative information only are consistent with previous research; changing to verbal descriptions causes a notable shift in support among principles, and in particular greater support for the principle of TBM; judgments based on both quantitative and verbal information match more closely those made with only quantitative information. The pattern of judgments is consistent with the hypothesis that subjects do not fully understand the relationship between the conceptual meaning of the principles (as described verbally) and their implied quantitative divisions. We also find evidence of modest differential judgments across goods (pills vs. apples), sample effects (university vs. community), and sex effects, and little support for a non-zero allocation principle.