Gender and reward distributions: A test of two hypotheses

Abstract

This study was designed as a test of two competing explanations of gender differences in distributive justice: (a) the equity-equality hypothesis, which states that males endorse equitable distributions more than females and females endorse equal distributions more than males; and (b) the exploitation-accommodation hypothesis, which states that the sexes vary their norm endorsement according to self-favoring (males) or other-favoring (females) distribution outcomes. Preadolescent and college-aged subjects rated the fairness of reward distributions of vignette characters who had contributed either more or less than a co-worker in a task, and had subsequently divided the rewards either equitably or equally. The data provided no support for the equity-equality hypothesis, but did support the exploitation-accommodation hypothesis. Specifically, females rated equitable distributions of inferior workers as more fair than males did. Thus, the popular conclusion that males have a stronger commitment to equity than females must be rejected.