Alle Publikationen
- <<
- <
- 1
2018
-
(2018): Social decisions and fairness change when people’s interests are represented by autonomous agents. In: Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 32 (1), S. 163-187. DOI: 10.1007/s10458-017-9376-6
Abstract: There has been growing interest on agents that represent people's interests or act on their behalf such as automated negotiators, self-driving cars, or drones. Even though people will interact often with others via these agent representatives, little is known about whether people's behavior changes when acting through these agents, when compared to direct interaction with others. Here we show that people's decisions will change in important ways because of these agents; specifically, we showed that interacting via agents is likely to lead people to behave more fairly, when compared to direct interaction with others. We argue this occurs because programming an agent leads people to adopt a broader perspective, consider the other side's position, and rely on social norms-such as fairness-to guide their decision making. To support this argument, we present four experiments: in Experiment 1 we show that people made fairer offers in the ultimatum and impunity games when interacting via agent representatives, when compared to direct interaction; in Experiment 2, participants were less likely to accept unfair offers in these games when agent representatives were involved; in Experiment 3, we show that the act of thinking about the decisions ahead of time-i.e., under the so-called "strategy method"-can also lead to increased fairness, even when no agents are involved; and, finally, in Experiment 4 we show that participants were less likely to reach an agreement with unfair counterparts in a negotiation setting. We discuss theoretical implications for our understanding of the nature of people's social behavior with agent representatives, as well as practical implications for the design of agents that have the potential to increase fairness in society.
-
(2018): Normative expectations about fairness. The development of a charity norm in preschoolers. In: Journal of experimental child psychology 165, S. 66-84. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2017.03.016
DOI: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28477951 Abstract: This study investigated preschool children's normative expectations about the fair distribution of resources. We examined whether preschool children have a norm of charity, that is, a norm to give more to poor individuals than to wealthy individuals. To this end, we presented 3- to 6-year-olds (N=81) with two different resource allocation situations. In one situation, an agent complied with a norm of charity by allocating more resources to a poor recipient than to a rich recipient. In the other situation, a different agent violated the norm by allocating more resources to a wealthy recipient. We assessed (a) children's verbal protest and affirmation during the resource allocation situations, (b) their punishing and rewarding behavior toward the agents, and (c) their evaluations of the agents' behavior. The results show that older (5- and 6-year-old) preschool children enforced norm-compliant behavior and protested against the norm violation of the protagonist who gave more items to the wealthy recipient, but this was not the case in younger preschool children. These findings demonstrate that older preschool children consider charity as a norm and enforce this norm toward third parties.
Keywords: Child, Child Behavior/psychology, Child, Preschool, Entstehung von Normen, Entwicklungspsychologie, Fairness, Female, Gerechtigkeit, Gerechtigkeit in Bezug auf demographische Observablen, Gleichverteilung, Humans, Male, Moral Development, Normenwandel, Psychology, Child, Punishment, Resource Allocation, Reward, Social Justice/psychology, Social Norms, Werte 2017
-
(2017): Fairness and family background. In: Politics, Philosophy & Economics 16 (2), S. 117-131. DOI: 10.1177/1470594X15618966
Abstract: Fairness preferences fundamentally affect individual behavior and play an important role in shaping social and political institutions. However, people differ both with respect to what they view as fair and with respect to how much weight they attach to fairness considerations. In this article, we study the role of family background in explaining these heterogeneities in fairness preferences. In particular, we examine how socioeconomic background relates to fairness views and to how people make trade-offs between fairness and self-interest. To study this, we conducted an economic experiment with a representative sample of 14- to 15-year-old and matched the experimental data to administrative data on parental income and education. The participants made two distributive choices in the experiment. The first choice was to distribute money between themselves and another participant in a situation where there was no difference in merit. The second choice was to distribute money between two other participants with unequal merits. Our main finding is that there is a systematic difference in fairness view between children from low-socioceconomic status (SES) families and the rest of the participants; more than 50 percent of the participants from low-SES families are egalitarians, whereas only about 20 percent in the rest of the sample hold this fairness view. In contrast, we find no significant difference in the weight attached to fairness between children from different socioeconomic groups.
-
(2017): Treating Broome Fairly. In: Utilitas 29 (02), S. 214-238. DOI: 10.1017/S0953820816000303
Abstract: John Broome has developed an elegant and powerful theory of fairness. It is important to lay out his theory afresh because the basic structure of Broome's theory has been generally misunderstood. Once we understand its general structure, we are in a better position to assess what its normative implications are. In discussing objections that have been raised against Broome's theory, I will show that these implications are different from what his critics have commonly assumed.
2016
-
(2016): Retributive Responses. In: Journal of Conflict Resolution 45 (4), S. 453-469. DOI: 10.1177/0022002701045004003
Abstract: Retributive responses play a role in human behavior. Are they triggered primarily by supposed intentions or by observed consequences of actions? Experimental studies were conducted of retributive responses in situations in which the individual actor may inflict harmful consequences without intending to and intend harmful consequences without inflicting them. Results indicate that retributive responses are more strongly influenced by observed consequences than ascribed intentions. However, individual retributive motivations seem to be overshadowed by concerns that are nonretributive altogether, in that they focus on end-state distributions independently of who brought them about.
2015
-
(2015): Normativität und Macht. Zur Analyse sozialer Rechtfertigungsordnungen. Erste Auflage. Berlin: Suhrkamp (Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft)
2012
-
(2012): Epistemic Justice as a Virtue of Social Institutions. In: Social Epistemology 26 (2), S. 163-173. DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2011.652211
Abstract: In Epistemic injustice, Miranda Fricker makes a tremendous contribution to theorizing the intersection of social epistemology with theories of justice. Theories of justice often take as their object of assessment either interpersonal transactions (specific exchanges between persons) or particular institutions. They may also take a more comprehensive perspective in assessing systems of institutions. This systemic perspective may enable control of the cumulative effects of millions of individual transactions that cannot be controlled at the individual or institutional levels. This is true not only with respect to the overall distribution of such goods as income and wealth, but also with respect to the goods of testimonial and hermeneutical justice. Cognitive biases that may be difficult for even epistemically virtuous individuals to correct on their own may be more susceptible to correction if we focus on the principles that should govern our systems of testimonial gathering and assessment. Hence, while Fricker's focus on individual epistemic virtue is important, we also need to consider what epistemic justice as a virtue of social systems would require. My paper will indicate some directions forward on this front, focusing on the need for integration of diverse institutions and persons engaged in inquiry.
2007
-
(2007): Das Recht auf Rechtfertigung. Elemente einer konstruktivistischen Theorie der Gerechtigkeit. Orig.-Ausg., 1. Aufl.. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp (Suhrkamp-Taschenbuch Wissenschaft)
Abstract: Kann es im Zeitalter des Pluralismus noch gelingen, eine hinreichend komplexe Theorie politischer und sozialer Gerechtigkeit mit Hilfe eines einzigen normativen Grundsatzes zu begründen? Dieses Buch unternimmt einen solchen Versuch, indem es die wesentlichen Elemente einer "autonomen" Konstruktion der Gerechtigkeit zusammenträgt. Grundlegend ist dabei ein individuelles, moralisches Grund-Recht auf Rechtfertigung, das in den Kapiteln des ersten Teils in moralphilosophischer Perspektive expliziert wird. Im zweiten Teil werden auf dieser Basis die zentralen Bestandteile politischer und sozialer Gerechtigkeit - hinsichtlich der Grundbegriffe von Freiheit, Demokratie, Gleichheit, Toleranz - analysiert und verknüpft. Sie bilden den Kern einer kritischen, politischen Theorie der Gerechtigkeit, in der die Frage der "Rechtfertigungsmacht" zentral ist. Dies gilt auch, wie die Beiträge im dritten Teil zeigen, für die Gerechtigkeit auf transnationaler Ebene.
2000
-
(2000): Cooperation in groups. Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia u.a: Psychology Press
Abstract: This work explores the psychological motives that shape the extent and nature of people's cooperative behaviour in groups. In so doing, the authors bring together two literatures: the study of rule-following behaviour and the study of helping behaviour. They argue that both types of cooperative behaviour are rooted in people's views about the justice of group procedures. Four components of procedures are shown largely to define people's views about their fairness. Finally, the authors argue that people focus on procedural fairness because they use information about the fairness of group procedures to understand both the status of the group and their status within the group. These status judgments are important to people because they shape their self definitions and feelings of self worth.
1948
-
(1948): Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. KZfSS. Wiesbaden: Springer VS
Abstract: Im Zentrum der drei Theoriestränge "Liberalismus", "Kommunitarismus" und "Diskursethik" stehen unterschiedliche Konzepte der Normgenerierung und Entscheidungsfindung. Diese ethischen Rechtfertigungsstrategien werden mittels Experimenten auf ihre verhaltenstheoretische Relevanz hin ausgeleuchtet. Zwei Typen von Experimenten wurden mit 340 Studierenden der Ökonomie durchgeführt: (1) Gefangenendilemma-Spiele, die untersuchen, ob Individuen für die Erstellung eines öffentlichen Gutes kooperieren oder ihren eigenen, kurzfristigen Vorteil suchen, und (2) Fairness-Spiele, die darstellen, inwieweit Individuen bei Verteilungskonflikten bereit sind, mit den Schwächergestellten zu kooperieren. Wenn sich die Versuchspersonen anonym entscheiden mussten, verhielten sie sich am relativ stärksten gemäß dem Erwartungsnutzenmodell der Ökonomie. Sie kooperierten kaum. Nur Regeln, die in Anlehnung an die liberale Sichtweise klare Anreize für die Wahl der kooperativen Strategie schufen, führten zu einer Erhöhung der Kooperation (Ultimatum-Spiel). Wurden durch die Identifikation gemeinschaftlich definierte Normen (Kommunitarismus) aktiviert, reagierten die Versuchspersonen auf mögliche soziale Sanktionen mit erhöhter Kooperation. Eine Überwindung des "Trittbrettfahrerproblems" war möglich, wenn die Individuen auf das diskursethische Konzept "Gespräch" rekurrierten und dadurch gegenseitige Verhaltenserwartungen koordinieren konnten.
- <<
- <
- 1