<p>Acceptance rates for fair and unfair offers following positive and negative adjectives in uncertain and certain contexts in Experiment 3.</p
<p>Choice was between spending no money (0 CHF) vs. 5 CHF (approximately 5$) to be delivered, unknow...
<p>Acceptance rates in % and standard errors (in parentheses) per offer amount.</p
<p>The fairness rating was highest in the better-performance condition in response to advantageous o...
<p>Participants showed enhanced tolerance to unequal offers when their performance was worse than th...
<p>Earned entitlement modulated participants’ response to both advantageous and disadvantageous uneq...
<p>Mean percentage and standard errors of rejection of 8∶2-offers are displayed. Significant differe...
<p>It is clear that the rejection rates in the three public situations (informed-IG and non-informed...
<p>Mean scores for participants' evaluation of the fairness of offers made by attractive and less at...
<p>The ratings of fairness decreased as offers became more unequal and as performance became better....
<p>Participants were more likely to accept advantageous unequal offers when they performed better th...
<p>Decision times (in ms) for acceptance and rejection choices preceded by positive and negative tra...
<p>(<b>A</b>) Proposers' offers. The equality and equity norms are shown in blue (horizontal) and re...
<p>The fairness rating was highest in the better-performance condition in response to advantageous o...
<div><p>a. Acceptance rates in percent categorized according the amount of money offered to the subj...
<p>The table reports the acceptance rate (%) of Unfair (10–20 cents), Moderately Unfair (30 cents), ...
<p>Choice was between spending no money (0 CHF) vs. 5 CHF (approximately 5$) to be delivered, unknow...
<p>Acceptance rates in % and standard errors (in parentheses) per offer amount.</p
<p>The fairness rating was highest in the better-performance condition in response to advantageous o...
<p>Participants showed enhanced tolerance to unequal offers when their performance was worse than th...
<p>Earned entitlement modulated participants’ response to both advantageous and disadvantageous uneq...
<p>Mean percentage and standard errors of rejection of 8∶2-offers are displayed. Significant differe...
<p>It is clear that the rejection rates in the three public situations (informed-IG and non-informed...
<p>Mean scores for participants' evaluation of the fairness of offers made by attractive and less at...
<p>The ratings of fairness decreased as offers became more unequal and as performance became better....
<p>Participants were more likely to accept advantageous unequal offers when they performed better th...
<p>Decision times (in ms) for acceptance and rejection choices preceded by positive and negative tra...
<p>(<b>A</b>) Proposers' offers. The equality and equity norms are shown in blue (horizontal) and re...
<p>The fairness rating was highest in the better-performance condition in response to advantageous o...
<div><p>a. Acceptance rates in percent categorized according the amount of money offered to the subj...
<p>The table reports the acceptance rate (%) of Unfair (10–20 cents), Moderately Unfair (30 cents), ...
<p>Choice was between spending no money (0 CHF) vs. 5 CHF (approximately 5$) to be delivered, unknow...
<p>Acceptance rates in % and standard errors (in parentheses) per offer amount.</p
<p>The fairness rating was highest in the better-performance condition in response to advantageous o...
DOI
Add to ORKG