Effects of interactional goal on choice of allocation rule: A cross-national study

Abstract

Theoretical analyses have suggested that the fairness of allocation rules is affected by the interactional goal of the situation in which these rules are used. The equity rule is likely to be used in situations where the emphasis is on competition and productivity, whereas the equality rule is likely to be used in situations where the emphasis is on group harmony and solidarity. This hypothesis was tested in a cross-cultural study involving Korean and American subjects. In the study, subjects read a scenario that described a working situation emphasizing either productivity or harmony, and an employer who used either the equality rule or the equity rule to allocate a reward between two workers. Subjects evaluated the allocation and the allocator on bipolar adjective scales and indicated how they would allocate the reward for the two co-workers. Results confirmed the hypotheses, showing that when the interactional goal emphasized productivity, subjects judged the equity rule to be fairer, used the equity rule to a larger extent, and judged an allocator using the equity rule as more competent and less unfriendly. In contrast, when the interactional goal emphasized interpersonal harmony, subjects judged the equality rule to be fairer, used the equality rule to a larger extent, and judged an allocator using the equality rule as higher on social competence and more friendly. Results also indicated that Korean subjects showed a stronger relation between the allocation rule a person uses and his/her friendliness than did American subjects. The implications of these results are discussed.